Appeal 2006-2835
Application 10/033,496
of between 50 and 250 millinewtons.” We further find that the modulus
ranges disclosed in Dontula ‘976 at col. 6, ll. 23-29, relied on by the
Examiner, in fact clearly overlap the claimed modulus ranges encompassed
by appealed claim 18. We find that the “flexural modulus” and other
disclosure in Dontula ‘976 at col. 5, ll. 45-64, relied on by the Examiner, in
fact involve only the upper and lower sheets. However, the reference further
discloses “a relationship between stiffness of the imaging element and the
caliper and modulus of the foam core and the modulus of the flange sheets”
(col. 5, l. 65, to col. 6, l. 21). The Dontula ‘976 Examples 4 through 7
illustrate base components in which a foamed polypropylene core sheet is
laminated with upper and lower oriented polystyrene sheets having a
“flexural modulus” range falling within the claimed modulus range in
appealed claim 18 for upper and lower sheets which can be “polystyrene.”
On this record, we agree with Appellants. As a matter of fact, the
imaging layers encompassed by Dontula ‘976 generic patent claim 1 and the
claims dependent thereon relied on by the Examiner are not coterminous
with or entirely fall within any or all of appealed claims 2 through 8 and 18
through 21 in all respects except for a description of the property of
toughness. Indeed, the closed cell foam core sheets can be of any polymeric
material and are not limited with respect to the property of modulus and
thus, would not be limited with respect to the property of toughness.
Therefore, on this basis alone, the patent claims of Dontula ‘976 do not
reasonably appear to provide an identical description of the claimed imaging
element encompassed by the appeal claims to one skilled in this art within
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007