Appeal No. 2007-0484 5
element 4.16 The main material layer 4 has a cut 2 the length of the filler, but not
entirely through the width of the filler, to permit the insertion of intermediate
layer 3.17 The filler is wrapped in a plastic foil 5 approximately 10-50 μm thick.18
The main layer 4 and intermediate layer 3 run the length of the filler, but only the
main layer 4 runs the thickness of the filler in either of the two dimensions in
which Walendy uses any variation of the term "thick".
Differences between the prior art and the claims
Slit
To ascertain the difference between the claimed slit and Ducharme's cavities
and slots, we must first construe the entire contested claim limitation:
a slit penetrating to a depth less than the panel thickness that traverses
and severs the primary face or the face opposing the primary face.
We accord a claim its broadest construction reasonably consistent with the
specification. Dow's specification describes a "slit traversing a primary face or a
face opposing a primary face and extending to a depth less than the panel
thickness."19 "Primary face" is defined to have " a surface area equal to that of the
highest surface area face on the panel."20 "Panel thickness" is defined to be " a
perpendicular distance between a primary face and its opposing face."21 The
specification does not use the term "severs". The definition of "sever" that Dow
offers22 is problematic since it is literally inconsistent with the claimed constraint
16 2:54-65; Fig. 2.
17 2:60-62.
18 3:11-14.
19 Page 13:1-4.
20 Page 4:20-22.
21 Page 4:33-34.
22 AB at 6: "separate into two parts".
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013