Appeal 2006-2714
Application 10/228,898
(Specification 3:2-17). One skilled in the art would understand from this
description, and the illustration in Fig. 1, that Appellant’s sanding pad 12,
reinforced by the reinforcing corner member 46, is stable in its V-shaped
configuration and, thus, will maintain the V-shape regardless of whether it is
secured to or separated from the V-shaped carrier. Consistent with that
description in the Specification, a person possessing the ordinary level of
skill in the art would understand claim 7 to be directed to the structure of the
sanding pad, not a method of assembling the sanding device, as contended
by the Examiner. Specifically, in light of Appellant’s Specification, such a
person would interpret the language at issue in claim 7 as defining the
sanding pad as stable in its V-shape, regardless of whether it is secured to
the V-shaped carrier. The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, is reversed.
The second issue presented to us is whether Sims’ steel wool pad is a
“sanding pad” as called for in Appellant’s claim 5. Appellant argues, in
essence, that Sims discloses use of the device and included pad for cleaning,
polishing, and waxing floors and walls, not for sanding or abrading the
walls, and that, consequently, the Examiner has erred in reading the
“sanding pad” of claim 5 on Sims’ steel wool pad (Br. 4-7). Appellant also
complains that the Examiner has erred in failing to explicitly construe the
term “sanding pad” on the record (Br. 4, 7-8). Appellant further argues that
the preamble language “drywall sanding device” recites essential structure
necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to claim 5 (Br. 8). The
Examiner cites several references to support the Examiner’s position that the
steel wool pad of Sims meets the structural definition of a “sanding pad”
(Answer 3). In response, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013