Appeal 2007-1400
Reexamination Control 90/006,825
Patent 6,457,239 B1
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 over Villwock is
AFFIRMED.
Anticipation by Eldridge
The Examiner rejects claims 1–20 as anticipated by Eldridge. More
particularly, the Examiner finds that Eldridge describes a device having all
the limitations of the claims, citing specific structures that meet the
limitations recited in the dependent claims. (Answer at 4-5.) McLaughlin
does not object to any of the Examiner's specific findings (Br. at 11-12), and
we hold that such objections have been waived. McLaughlin does argue that
Eldridge does not teach "adhering" the "impervious thin plastic laminate 4"
to the magnet support with an adhesive or a thermal bond. (Br. at 13.) As
independent claims 9 and 18 recite that "magnetically charged faces" are
"adhered to the [magnet support] surface," the rejection of claims 9–20 must
be reversed for lack of a recited limitation if McLaughlin is correct. Thus,
the meaning of the term "adhered" is dispositive.
McLaughlin argues that the term "adhered" is defined in the patent as
either "the application of adhesive . . . or the application of heat to form a
thermal bond." (Br. at 13; ellipsis introduced.) However, that passage
(239 patent at 3:6-10) occurs in the description of a particular embodiment
— one that expressly omits an "interior face 12B" covering the magnet.
(239 patent at 3:5–10.) We cannot read limitations from the specification
into the claims. Claims 9 and 18 contain no language that excludes the
presence of an "interior face 12B" or the laminating sheet 4 taught by
Eldridge, just as claim 1 contains no language excluding the "adhered to"
limitation recited in claims 9 and 18. Limitations in the specification may
-22-
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013