Appeal 2006-2846
Application 10/349,468
Appellant’s claim feature of “a low density polyethylene material” is
satisfied by Studen’s disclosure of “expanded polyethylene.” We observe
nothing in the claims expressly excluding “expanded polyethylene” from the
claim feature “a low density polyethylene material.” Based on the foregoing
evidence, we determine, as the Examiner has previously indicated, that “a
low density polyethylene material” includes “expanded polyethylene foam.”
Accordingly, Appellant’s only argued distinction, “a thermal
insulating layer comprising a low density polyethylene material,” is satisfied
by the applied prior art. As a consequence, we affirm the following
rejections: (1) claims 1, 7 and 9-12 under § 103(a) over Henderson in view
of Studen, (2) claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 under § 103(a) over Shelby in view of
Studen, and (3) claims 1 and 3-12 under § 103(a) over Dickert in view of
either Welch or Shelby in further view of Studen.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2006).
AFFIRMED
cam
Pinnacle Patent Law Group
1280 29th Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94122
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Last modified: September 9, 2013