Appeal 2006-2553
Application 10/685,587
integrally bonded to a back surface of said substrate through an adhesive
layer" excludes intervening layers such as the metal deposition layer of
Parker. Appellant also argues that the Vander Velden reference does not
cure the deficiency of Parker (Br. 5).
We cannot agree with the Appellant that the phrase “integrally
bonded” excludes the metal layer described by Parker. From our
perspective, the term “integrally” is sufficiently broad to embrace the
attachment of the backing material through the metal vapor layer to the
substrate as disclosed in Parker. Our reviewing court has on several prior
occasions interpreted the term "integral" to cover more than a unitary
construction. See, e.g, Advanced Cardiovascular Sys. v. Scimed Life Sys.,
887 F.2d 1070, 1074, 12 USPQ2d 1539, 1542 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (nothing of
record limited "integral" to mean "of one-piece" construction); In re Hotte,
475 F.2d 644, 647, 177 USPQ 326, 329 (CCPA 1973); In re Kohno,
391 F.2d 959, 157 USPQ 275 (CCPA 1968); In re Dike, 394 F.2d 584,
157 USPQ 581 (CCPA 1968); In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347
(CCPA 1965); and In re Clark, 214 F.2d 148, 102 USPQ 241 (CCPA 1954
The dictionary definition cited by Appellant (Br. 5) does not conclusively
limit “integral” to exclude the intervening layer disclosed by Parker. In
other words, Parker discloses all of the layers “essential to completeness.”
Also, one definition in Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary is “formed as a
unit with another part.” Manifestly, the laminate of Parker is formed as a
unit, and the inclusion of a metal layer between Appellant’s substrate and
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007