Appeal 2007-0255
Application 10/331,878
Claims 15-23, 25, 27, 28, and 33-52 either depend from claim 24 or
contain the same "consisting of" language and do not enumerate purified
carbon dioxide gas or the like condensable gas. The rejections of claims 15-
17, 20-23, and 25 as unpatentable over Perkins, claims 18, 19, 27, and 28 as
unpatentable over Perkins in view of Hunter, and claims 33-52 as
unpatentable over Perkins in view of Hunter and Appellant's remarks on
page 5 of the Amendment filed October 2, 2003 are grounded in part on the
Examiner's determination that the condensable gas charged into the panel of
Perkins is not excluded by the "consisting of" language and are thus also
reversed for the reason discussed above with respect to claim 24.
Appellant argues that Perkins does not satisfy the phrase "boards
sliding directly on each other" in claim 53 because the shields prevent the
separators from sliding directly on each other (Appeal Br. 9). The Examiner
dismisses this limitation as "not supported by the specification and the
drawings" and thus treats the limitation as requiring only that the boards
slide directly "over" each other (Answer 20). To the extent that the
Examiner is dismissive of the limitation because, according to the Examiner,
it is not supported by Appellant's Specification and drawings, this is
improper. Of course, all words in a claim must be considered in judging the
patentability of that claim against the prior art. In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382,
1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970). The foam separators 14 of Perkins
are separated by reflective shields 12, as well as spaces between the
separators and shields which are not clearly disclosed as being eliminated
when the panel is self-evacuated, and thus do not slide directly on (in contact
with) each other. Accordingly, Appellant's position that Perkins does not
meet the "boards sliding directly on each other" limitation of claim 53 is
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013