Appeal 2006-2835
Application 10/033,496
crosslinking, and the amount and direction of orientation of the polymer
sheet . . . [and] the imaging member of Dontula does meet the same
toughness-related required properties” required for processing through the
same photofinishing equipment (Answer 6-7). In reply, Appellants submit
that “[t]he property important for passing through a photofinishing machine .
. . is stiffness not toughness” and the latter property is not recognized by
Dontula ‘976 at col. 5, ll. 61-64 (Reply Br. 1-2).
We find that Dontula ‘976 claim 1 encompasses imaging members
having components with the same basic elements specified in appealed claim
18, except that patent claim 1 requires that the closed cell foam core sheet
and the upper and lower “flange” sheets, that is, upper and lower sheets, of
the base are generically “polymers” while appealed claim 18 specifies that
the closed cell foam core sheet is “a thermoplastic polymer” and the upper
and lower sheets are “selected from at least one member of the group
consisting of paper, polyolefins, and polystyrene.” Dontula ‘976 dependent
claims 9 and 24 specify that the upper and lower sheets “comprise biaxially
oriented polyolefin sheets,” and “comprise at least one member selected
from the group consisting of high density polyethylene, polypropylene, or
polystyrene; their blends or their copolymers,” respectively. No patent
claim requires specific “polymer” materials for the closed cell foam core
sheet of patent claim 1.
We find that, as the Examiner points out, none of the Dontula ‘976
claims specify the modulus or toughness properties of the closed cell foam
core sheet and the upper and lower sheets. Indeed, the only structural
property specified in patent claim 1 is “said imaging member has a stiffness
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007