Appeal No. 2006-1120
Application No. 10/429,429
pages 23-26 and claim 2 on page 29). Moreover, both the
appellants and Eling envision using their flexible polyurethane
foams as articles in the form of cushioning materials in home
furnishing and automotive applications (e.g., see lines 3-5 on
page 8 of the subject specification in comparison with lines 6-9
on page 20 of the reference).
Under the circumstances recounted above, it is our
determination that the reference evidence adduced by the examiner
establishes a prima facie case of anticipation with respect to
representative article claim 13 which the appellants have failed
to successfully rebut with argument or evidence to the contrary.
See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1444, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992).
For completeness, we will now address independent
composition claim 1 since this claim recites the feature "a
flexible polyurethane foam reaction mixture" which the appellants
argue is not disclosed by Eling.
As the appellants recognize, claim language is given its
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification. For example, see In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147,
1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995). With this guidance
in mind, an artisan would interpret the claim language "a
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007