Appeal No. 96-3347
Application 08/160,460
evidence regarding super- absorbent materials, at least the
applied prior art cannot provide evidence of the recognition
in the art of the problem of superabsorbent material
migration. We note that the recognition of the problem is
part of the subject matter as a whole which should always be
considered in determining the obviousness of an invention
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Sponnoble, 405 F.2d 578, 585,
160 USPQ 237, 243 (CCPA 1969).
Secondly, means-plus-function language in a claim must be
construed by looking to the specification and interpreting the
language of the claim in light of the corresponding structure,
materials, or acts described in the specification. See In re
Donaldson Co., Inc., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848
(Fed. Cir. 1994). Therefore, it is clear that the sealing
means as claimed in claim 1, which is disclosed in the
specification as an adhesive or heat sealing means must be
interpreted as such when construing claim 1. Therefore, it
was incumbent on the examiner to make a factual finding that
the embossing means disclosed by Teed (‘272) is the same as or
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007