Appeal No. 97-4184
Application No. 08/521,256
possibility of infringement and dominance. It is to this that
the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 is directed. See In re
Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970).
Claim 1 is directed to a fastening system comprising an
array of prongs joined to an elastically extensible substrate
that is “prestrained to thereby increase the density of said
prongs.” According to the definition of “prestrained”
provided in the specification, this means that the elastically
extensible substrate was stretched, the prongs were installed,
and then it was allowed to contract in order to increase the
density of the prongs. It therefore would appear that the
prestrained condition that was present during the
manufacturing process has come and gone, and is not present in
the completed fastening system article, which is the subject
of the claims. However, the claim goes on to state “whereby
said prongs and said pre-strained substrate apply a preload
when attached to said complementary receiving surface,” which
would seem to indicate that the prestrained condition is still
in existence when the substrate is attached to the receiving
surface. We are at a loss to determine what this seemingly
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007