Appeal 2006-2796
Application 09/230,439
1 THE REJECTIONS
2 The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as follows: claims 18-20
3 and 22 over Nelson; claims 18 and 20 over Kemper; claims 18-20 and 22 over
4 Aidan; claims 18-20, 22, 27-30 and 32-35 over Naka ‘797; claims 18-20 and 22
5 over Naka ‘951; and claims 18-20 and 22 over Naka ‘294.
6 OPINION
7 We affirm the rejections over Naka ‘951, Naka ‘294 and Naka ‘797 and
8 reverse the rejections over Nelson, Kemper and Aidan.
9 The Appellant states that the claims are grouped together (Br. 8). Regarding
10 the affirmed rejections, we therefore limit our discussion to one claim, i.e.,
11 claim 18. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
12 Rejection over Naka ‘951
13 Naka ‘951 discloses a stair edge cover (11) that is made of flexible synthetic
14 resin, a flexible rubber or the like and comprises an edge bead cushion (13), a thin
15 tread side fixing tongue (14) and a thin riser side fixing tongue (15) (col. 2, ll. 29-
16 32).
17 The Appellant argues that Naka ‘951 affixes a stair mat, not a facing
18 material, to the tread side fixing tongue, and does not affix anything to the riser
19 side fixing tongue (Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 5; Supp. Reply Br. 2). During patent
20 prosecution, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
21 consistent with the Specification, as the claim language would have been read by
22 one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the Specification. See In re Zletz, 893
23 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d
24 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The Appellant’s Specification
25 does not define “facing material”. The dictionary definitions of “facing” include
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013