Appeal No. 2006-1120
Application No. 10/429,429
discussed earlier is consistent with this disclosure of the
appellants' specification.
Referring to the disclosure in Table 3 on page 11 of their
specification and to an exhibit attached to their Reply Brief,2
the appellants additionally urge that the claim feature "a
flexible polyurethane foam reaction mixture" should be
interpreted as limited to reactants having certain molecular
weight and functionality characteristics. Such an interpretation
would be inappropriate for two reasons. First, nothing in their
specification or the proffered exhibit establishes that flexible
polyurethane foam can be made only from reactants having these
certain characteristics, and the Eling reference evinces the
contrary. Second, such an interpretation would require the
unacceptable importation of limitations from the specification
into the claims. See Prima Tek II, L.L.C. v. Polypap, S.A.R.L.,
412 F.3d 1284, 1289, 75 USPQ 1219, 1223 (Fed. Cir. (Ill) 2005).
In conclusion, we find no persuasive merit in the
appellants' position that the appealed claims are not anticipated
by the Eling reference. We hereby sustain, therefore, the § 102
rejection of claims 1-39 as being anticipated by Eling.
2The appellants' proffer of this exhibit does not comply
with 37 CFR § 41.41(a)(2).
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007