Appeal No. 97-0771
Application No. 08/405,385
The closure devices called for in the last paragraph of
claim 15 are described as joining the left and right sides of
the front primary flap to the respective left and right sides
of the rear primary flap over the waist and hip areas of the
wearer. While is true that claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation in proceeding before the
PTO, this interpretation must be consistent with the
specification and construed as those of ordinary skill in the
art would construe them. See In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 833,
15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Specialty Composites v.
Cabot Corp., 845 F.2d 981, 986, 6 USPQ2d 1601, 1604 (Fed. Cir.
1988) and In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388
(Fed. Cir. 1983). Here, we believe one of ordinary skill in
the art would interpret the closure device language of claim
15 as requiring the closure devices to extend a substantial
distance along the sides of the primary flaps in order to join
the front and rear primary flaps over both the waist area and
the hip area of the wearer, as now claimed. While we
appreciate that the closure fasteners 34, 35 of Finlay located
in the corners of the hourglass shape may be said to extend,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007