Appeal 2007-2206
Application 10/181,977
discloses an embossed sheet that meets all of the limitations of claim 1, we
agree that Roussel anticipates claim 1.
Appellant argues3 that Roussel’s Figure 2 does not disclose “a first
series of protuberances, each having a flattened free-end portion with
rounded edges, with sufficient clarity and detail to establish that the subject
matter existed in the cited reference” (Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 4).
Appellant argues that Figures 6 and 7 show that “the protrusions on the
embossing roll have sharp edges, which the specification describes as to
concentrate stress and sharply mark the sheet in order to provide greater
contrast between the embossed and unembossed zones” (Br. 11; see also
Reply Br. 5-6). Appellant argues that the neither of the frustoconical
“salients” (embossments) 110L and 210S shown in Figure 8b have rounded
edges, nor do the crater-shaped recesses have flattened free end portions
(Reply Br. 6). Therefore, Appellant argues, “[t]he combination of graphical
and textual disclosure makes it abundantly clear that every salient in the
sheet of Roussel et al. (as shown in Figures 2, 4, 8a and 8b) are not
necessarily intended to have rounded edges” (Br. 11). Appellant concludes
that because claim 1 requires “‘each’ protuberance in a first series [to] have
rounded edges, Roussel et al. cannot serve to anticipate” (id.).
We are not persuaded by this argument. In our view, protuberances
110L and 210S in Figure 8b of Roussel have flattened ends with rounded
edges rather than sharply creased edges. While the steel cylinder AŽ in
3 Rather than citing to the Roussel translation of record, Appellant cites
column and line numbers from U.S. Patent No. 6,524,683, the issued U.S.
national stage of the Roussel PCT application. (See, e.g., Br. 10-12; Reply
Br. 3-6.)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013