Appeal 2006-1207
Application 10/354,491
Appellant replies, “the resin saturated reinforcement tape prevents
surface cracking of the joint tape. Such features are not recited with respect
to the joint tape. Thus, not only does Appellant's use of different claim
terms (‘composite joint tape’ and ‘resin saturated reinforcement tape’) to
identify each layer require the presence of two separate elements differing in
scope, so to [sic, too] does Appellant's identification of specific
characteristics of the resin saturated reinforcement tape not identified with
respect to the composite joint tape” (Reply Br. 6).
We concur with the Examiner that the language of claim 17 does not
require the composite tape and the resin saturated reinforcement tape to be
separate materials. The claims do not recite any structural limitations that
distinguish the resin saturated reinforcement tape from the composite joint
tape. Wilhelm’s tape is a cloth or fleece mat saturated with resin matrix
(Translation 8). According to Wilhelm, “[l]aminates of glass mats (5) . . .
saturated with resin (6), are applied to the uncoated area, whereby the upper
laminate overlaps the coated area” (Figure; Translation 11). Thus, the
claimed and prior art products again appear to be identical. If identical,
Wilhelm’s wrapped joint tape necessarily performs the function in claim 17
of preventing surface cracking (i.e., of the underlying laminate). The
Appellant has submitted no evidence proving that Wilhelm’s wrapped joint
tape does not necessarily or inherently perform the function of claim 17.
Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433.
Accordingly, we sustain the anticipatory rejection of claim 17 over
Wilhelm.
Independent claim 18 differs from independent claim 14 in that the
curing step need not “provide hoop reinforcement to the first and second
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007