Appeal No. 2001-2366 Page 5
Application No. 08/926,533
in the art would be informed that it would be normal to use a total of 5 or 6 articles in a
twenty-four hour period, for an overall rate of about one every four hours. Presumably
this rate, and any greater rate, would qualify as a “sufficient frequency” for replacing the
treated articles in accordance with the claimed method. However, no explicit
information has been provided from which the artisan can determine the lower and
upper limits of the range of “sufficient frequency,” that is, how few and how many article
changes are intended to fall within the scope of the claim.
This issue is complicated by considering the phrase “a cumulative amount,”
which also has not been defined in the specification, and which is the goal of the
“sufficient frequency” of applications. On its face, a “cumulative” amount would mean
that each treated article adds an amount of treatment substance to the skin of the
wearer over and above the amount present at the time of the previous treated article
was applied, so that the more treated articles applied the more substance accumulates
on the skin of the user, as would be the case when additional coats of paint are applied
one over the other to a wall. However, considering the phrase in the light of the
specification raises the question of whether this interpretation is an accurate
representation of the inventive method, for it could be postulated that because the
amount of the substance present on the wearer’s skin would constantly be subject to
degradation from being absorbed into the skin and from the effect of outside influences
such as urine, wash water, and the like, it would not, in fact, accumulate as new treated
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007