Appeal No. 2006-1038
Application No. 10/138,994
presently claimed composite structures" (Brief, page 6).
According to the appellant, this is because "the present
invention does not contain tufts of yarn" whereas "[t]ufts of
yarn are required by both the Irwin reference and the
Holeschovsky . . . reference" (id.). On page 7 of the Brief, the
appellant elaborates on this argument as follows:
It is noted by Appellants [sic] that the present claim
[i.e., appealed claim 1] uses "comprising" language and
thus, in the broadest sense, does not clearly exclude
tufts of yarn which are required by the Irwin
reference. This is, however, irrelevant! As stated
above, this particular combination of references simply
does not result in the invention as presently claimed
by Appellants [sic], and the required modification of
the Irwin reference to "arrive at" Appellants [sic]
invention is improper. Thus, one of ordinary skill in
the art has no insight into the presently claimed
invention upon reading the Irwin reference in
combination with the Holeschovsky et al reference.
The appellant does not explain, and we cannot divine, why
he considers it "irrelevant" (id.) that claim 1 does not
exclude Irwin's tufts of yarn. To the contrary, it seems
indisputable to us that the claim 1 recitation "composite
structure comprising . . ." includes rather than excludes the
tufts of Irwin's carpet. See In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686,
210 USPQ 795, 802 (CCPA 1981).
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007