Appeal No. 97-1440
Application 08/187,838
thereof, since the release layer is specifically designed to be
readily removable from the adhesive on the Ohno device, and that
by contrast, the appellant's invention is directed to an
underlying laminate that is relatively permanently bonded to the
confronting laminate, except at the location of the cover
portion.
When we look to the totality of the disclosure and to
appellant's arguments in this case, we are of the opinion that
the only fair and reasonable interpretation of the claim language
"relatively permanently bonded" as used in independent claims 1,
6 and 15 on appeal is that -- relative to the movable cover
portion that is integrally formed with the lower laminate, the
remainder of the lower laminate of the claimed bracelet is
permanently bonded to the adjacent laminates over the majority of
the body portion of the bracelet so as not to be removable
therefrom.
Returning now to the examiner's prior art rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) of appealed claims 1 through 3, 6, 9,
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007