Appeal No. 1999-0441
Application No. 08/676,454
contain similar limitations. The linchpin of the examiner’s
rejections is that this limitation reads on the folded over
portions 4, 5 and 6 of Pigneul that are bonded to the main
body portion at gluing points 8. In this regard, the examiner
states that “[e]ach bond site [8] is a continuous point or
line extending from one end of the pocket toward an extremity.
It should be noted that the length of the line or the distance
toward the extremity has not been claimed” (First Office
Action (Paper No. 4), page 5).
Appellant’s argument in opposition to this position may
be summarized by the following quote from the Reply Brief
(page 5):
Appellant has consistently maintained that the
claim language “affixed to said main body along each
respective longitudinal edge of said main body with
the exception of at least a portion of a line of
intersection between each tab and said main body
remains unbonded” sufficiently distinguishes over
the cited reference which is limited to single bond
points at the intersection of the tab and the main
body.
Appellant has enclosed herewith a copy of a
dictionary definition of the word “along” as defined
in The American Heritage College Dictionary, Third
Edition, (1993). As defined therein, the word
“along” is a preposition meaning “Over the length
of.” Thus, with regard to the present pending
claims, the invention requires that the bonds extend
“over the length” of each respective longitudinal
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007