Appeal No. 2007-0484 7
Ducharme's cavities 28, 29 differ from the claimed slit in that they do not
traverse a primary face. They are openings in a smaller face and do not completely
cross that face. Ducharme's slots 30, 31 differ from the claimed slit in that the face
they traverse is not a primary face. We note that Walendy's cut 2 traverses a short
face, but not entirely through the thickness, of the filler body to define a hinge to
permit the insertion of intermediate layer 3.
Panel domain thickness
Again, we begin with the broadest construction reasonable in view of the
specification. Claim 22 states that "the panel domains extend through the thickness
of the panel." We understand "the thickness of the panel" to correspond to "panel
thickness" as it is defined in the specification and discussed above. The
specification defines a "panel domain" as "a section of a building panel that
extends a building panel's length, width, thickness, or a combination thereof."27
"Section" is not defined in the specification. Examples of domains in the
specification are discrete elements,28 but the specification does not require the
domains to be discrete. We construe the further limitation of claim 22 to require at
least two sections of the overall structure to extend from the primary face to an
opposing face.
The examiner relies on layers 3 and 4 of Walendy for this limitation.
Intermediate layer 3 plainly does not extend through any dimension. We find this
to be true even discounting the de minimis addition of plastic film. Moreover,
extension of intermediate layer 3 all of the way through the thickness of Walendy's
filler body would appear to be at odds with the point of Walendy since it would
27 Page 5:23-25.
28 Page 5:29-31: bands, strips, and plugs.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013