Appeal 2006-2998
Application 09/956,524
Appellants argue that even if the surface of Flaugher showed curvature in a
second direction transverse to a first direction, Flaugher would not anticipate
the present claims because if there were curvature in this direction, the linear
rods of Flaugher would, out of necessity, not be substantially of a constant
distance from the pressing surface as the distance would vary in accordance
with the curvature.
We are not convinced by Appellants’ arguments for the following
reasons.
First, Appellants’ specification does not provide a specific description,
e.g., measurements, for defining the term “substantially.” Hence, we turn to
the ordinary meaning of this word. As stated by the Examiner on page 5 of
the Answer, the word “substantially” encompasses a relatively wide ranges
of values. In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA
1962). In this light, referring to Figure 2 of Flaugher, heating elements 70
are disposed to substantially follow the contoured shape of the pressing
surface to maintain a substantially constant distance from the pressing
surface of the male mold. We see no difference between that depicted in
Figure 2 of Flaugher and that claimed in the last paragraph of Appellants’
claim 1, in light of the claim interpretation discussed herein.
Second, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that the figures in
Flaugher depict a curvature along the longitudinal axis and transverse axis.
For example, both drawings of Figure 3 depict such a feature. We do note
that the C.C.P.A. has recognized a subtle distinction between a written
description adequate to support a claim under §112 and a written description
sufficient to anticipate its subject matter under §102(b). The difference
between "claim-supporting disclosures" and "claim-anticipating disclosures"
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007