Appeal No. 2006-1246 Page 6
Application No. 09/726,372
is “implicit” in the original disclosure. (Brief, p. 37). The Appellants have not directed
us to evidence in the specification or in the drawings that describes the temperature of
the aluminum foil and coextruded plastic prior to combining and exiting the oven. We
have not been directed to portions of the record that explain that the temperature of
the aluminum foil lines and coextruded plastic necessarily was below the crystalline
melting point of polypropylene prior to entering the oven. While it might have been
possible that the temperature of the aluminum foil lines and coextruded plastic was
below the crystalline melting point of polypropylene prior to entering the oven, this is
not the proper standard for determining if the record provides an adequate written
disclosure. In view of the above, the present specification and drawings do not
provide descriptive support for claims 28 and 55 in the manner provided for in the first
paragraph of ' 112.
Appellants’ arguments regarding claim 47, have been considered. Specifically
Appellants state:
Claim 47 requires that the temperature of the aluminum foil be at
room temperature when the aluminum foil and the coextrudate are
combined. Since specific embodiments/examples and Figures in
appellants' disclosure do not spell out the temperature of the aluminum
foil, scientific and technical convention (plus a C.C.P.A. decision)
attributes room temperature thereto (unless otherwise shown by
circumstances, etc.). Therefore, Claim 47 has been shown to not
involve new matter, and does not rise or fall with any other claim.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007