Appeal 2007-1485
Application 10/943,944
one another. Appellants have failed to explain why the language of claim 13
should be construed so as to require the layers to have portions that are
uncovered by one another. In particular, the explicit language of the claims
does not appear to include this limitation and Appellants have not directed
us to any language in the Specification which supports their proposed claim
construction. As such, we affirm the rejection of the claims for the reasons
presented by the Examiner.
Notwithstanding our above determinations, we find that the
description of the prior art appearing in the present Specification discloses
that it was known to persons of ordinary skill in the art to create a wide film
formed from a fluororesin comprising overlapping portions. The
Specification discloses that the wide film was known to have been used for a
covering material for agricultural use (Specification 1). The Specification
discloses that to create a wide film for a covering material films are bonded
to one another (Specification 1). The Specification further discloses that it
was known “[a]s a bonding method, it is common to employ a bonding
method in which edges of two sheets of films are overlapped, and the
overlapping portion is welded by press bonding under heating”
(Specification 1).
(B) The rejection over Jarvis in combination with Inaba.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013