Appeal No. 2004-0203
Application No. 09/780,320
that a problem in known pads and straps is the presence of seams,
and Hyams teaches a solution by making a brassiere shoulder strap
“free of seams” (see Hyams, col. 1, ll. 42-45; col. 1, l. 67-col.
2, l. 2; col. 2, ll. 13-14; and col. 3, ll. 35-36). Appellants
have submitted that “seamless” construction in brassiere shoulder
straps means formation of the straps “without inturned edges”
(Brief, page 2). Hyams further teaches fusing to bond the layers
of the strap together (col. 4, l. 67-col. 5, l. 4; see Figs. 1A,
1B and 2). Therefore, on this record, there is no evidence to
support appellants’ argument that Hyams is directed to “folded
edges” strap construction. Additionally, we note that appellants
have not submitted any evidence that the claimed finished product
differs from the finished product disclosed by Hyams.
Second, appellants argue that, in the alternative, the Board
Decision at page 5 includes an “explicit statement” that
appellants “may be allowed to rephrase the content of the product
claim as a process claim” (Request, page 3). However, appellants
have not identified, and we do not find, any explicit or implicit
statement in our Decision that appellants should be “allowed to
rephrase the content of the product claim as a process claim.”
At this stage of the prosecution, we find no reason for allowing
appellants to amend the claim.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007