Appeal 2007-4310
Application 10/950,830
surface on one side and visible scrim fibers on the other. (Br. part VII.A.2,
at 14.)
28. In particular, Price argues that there is no suggestion that the texture
taught by Mangum is provided by "discontinuous coverage of the scrim
fibers" as required by Claim 1. (Br. part VII.A.2, at 14–15.)
29. Although Price offers a summary of the teachings of the secondary
references, Price's only substantive argument is that the secondary references
do not cure the failure of Mangum to teach discontinuous foam on the scrim.
(Br. part VII.A.3, at 15–16.)
30. Price argues further that there is no suggestion that the use of two
identical scrims, as proposed by the Examiner, would result in a product
having foamed resin on a first major surface, as required by claims 11
and 12. (Br. part VII.B, at 17.)
31. Finally, Price argues that the Examiner has misconstrued claims 18
and 19 by reading the limitations "consisting essentially of a single layer of
scrim . . . " and "comprising a single layer of scrim . . . " on embodiments
having multiple layers of scrim. (Br. part VII.C and D, at 17–21.)
C. DISCUSSION
The predecessor to our reviewing court explained over three decades
ago that, for rejections for anticipation to be proper, the "reference must
clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed compound or direct those
skilled in the art to the compound without any need for picking, choosing,
and combining various disclosures not directly related to each other by the
teachings of the cited reference." Application of Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587,
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013