Appeal 2007-1382
Application 10/334,871
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Jones in view of Wiercinski and Ahluwalia (Answer 5).
Claims 5 and 10-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jones in view of Wiercinski and Hubbard or Huffines
(id.).
Appellants contend that Jones is not “within the scope of the relevant
prior art,” that the claimed term “vapor retardant” renders the claimed
product structurally different from the product of Jones, and that the
combination of Jones and the other prior art as proposed by the Examiner
would render Jones’ product inoperable and unsatisfactory for its intended
purpose (Br. 8-14).
Appellants also contend that the claimed term “vapor retardant”
should be construed by reference to a technical dictionary, which limits the
term to a vapor transmission of “roughly” 11.5 g/square meter per 24 hours
while Jones discloses materials with a minimum vapor transmission of 150
g/square meter per 24 hours (Reply Br. 1-2).
The Examiner contends that Jones is directed to the field of roofing
underlayment (Answer 3).
The Examiner contends that Appellants fail to “clearly and
sufficiently” define “vapor retardant” in the Specification, and thus the
Examiner construes this term by its common and contemporary meaning to
mean that vapor is impeded in some degree (Answer 8). Therefore, the
Examiner construes this claimed term as reading on the vapor transmission
rates of Jones, and does not import any restrictive values from the
Specification into the claims (Answer 8-9).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013