Appeal No. 2007-0048 Page 2
Application No. 10/234,608
Accordingly, we treat independent claims 1 and 11 as representative of the
groups and limit our consideration of the issues in this appeal as they apply to
these representative claims. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d
1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Claims 1 and 11 read as follows:
1. In an insulated overhead door, which comprises a plurality of slats
defined by front, back, and side panels with an insulating material
disposed therein, wherein the improvement comprises an aerogel material
as the insulating material.
11. A web comprising a plurality of aerogel-filled vacuum insulated
panels having at least one perforation between one or more of such
panels allowing for separation of one or more aerogel-filled vacuum
insulated panels from each other.
The references relied upon by the examiner are:
Lowry, III et al. [Lowry]4,979,553 December 25, 1990
Martin 5,156,895 October 20, 1992
Gibson et al. [Gibson] 5,340,527 August 23, 1994
The rejections are :
1. Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being clearly
anticipated by Martin.
2. Claims 1-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Lowry in view of Gibson.
DISCUSSION
The Anticipation Rejection
Martin is applicable as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
The issue is whether examiner has presented a prima facie case of
anticipation of claim 11 over Martin under 35 U.S.C. §102(b). “A claim is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013