Appeal No. 2006-1098 Application No. 09/990,115 As for separately argued claim 14 which requires applying the polyurethane into a recess of the substrate, we find no error in the examiner’s finding that the figures of De Winter illustrate forming the polyurethane in recessed areas. Concerning separately argued claim 15, appellants have not refuted the examiner’s factual finding that “DeWinter teaches forming molded articles which comprise plural layers of polyurethane and then adding additional skin layers and other layers to form a finished article which can then be further processed to form a finished articles [sic, article] such as a dashboard. . See the example at col. 5, lines 52 – col. 6, line 64” (page 6 of Answer, first paragraph). Rather, appellants reference Figure 5 of their specification to support their argument that the examiner’s claim interpretation is incorrect. However, the examiner properly notes that “the claims are not specific as to the particular item which is formed” (id.). It is by now axiomatic that features disclosed in the specifi- cation, but not recited in the claims, are not to be read into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5, cert. denied, 474 U.S. 828 (1985). As a final point, we note that appellants base no argument upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected -6-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007