Appeal No. 2006-1493
Application No. 10/037,276
1 the ends of the absorbent portion. The Examiner contends that the definition
2 in Appellants’ claims of the minimum longitudinal length as lying “from
3 said first transverse end area to said second transverse end area” (emphasis
4 added), rather than from said first transverse end to said second transverse
5 end, invites a reading of “minimum length” as a distance which is less than
6 the entire extent of the absorbent along the principal longitudinal axis
7 (Answer 9).
8 Appellants argue that the “minimum longitudinal length” identified by
9 the Examiner in the annotated Fig. 1 on page 9 of the Answer is not the
10 entirety of the length of the absorbent and thus is not properly identified as
11 the minimum length of the absorbent called for in Appellants’ claims (Reply
12 Br. 2). Appellants point out the length of the absorbent continues beyond
13 the points identified by the Examiner. Id.
14 We agree with Appellants. The Examiner’s position that the two
15 arbitrary points identified in the annotated Fig. 1 define the “minimum
16 longitudinal length” of McFall’s absorbent portion 22 is unreasonable on its
17 face, for the reasons set forth by Appellants (Reply Br. 2). The claims
18 define the minimum longitudinal length as lying generally along the
19 principal longitudinal axis from said first transverse end area to said second
20 transverse end area, rather than from said first transverse end to said second
21 transverse end, because the recited transverse ends define the ends of the
22 absorbent at the maximum longitudinal length, not at the minimum
23 longitudinal length. While the claim language is awkward, it does not invite
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013