Appeal No. 97-3008
Application 08/211,222
the appellant. We have carefully reviewed the specification but
nowhere therein find a “deviant” definition of a “dart” as the
examiner alleges. As set forth in the specification (see the
paragraph bridging pages 1 and 2; page 5, lines 13-15) and claim
1, lines 10-12, the elasticized dart extends at least partially
along the sides of the garment in order to (1) minimize lateral
movement of the absorbent product and (2) form “upstanding wet
guards” to minimize leakage of body fluids. The elasticized dart
is further described in the specification as being
formed by fixing a stretched length of elastic material
in a fold of the liquid-resistant or liquid-impervious
material along one of the sides of the garment and
stitching together the sides of the fold to enclose the
stretched elastic material and thereby form the dart.
[Page 2; emphasis ours.]
See also specification, page 4, and Figures 1-3 of the drawing.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in this art, consistent
with the appellant’s specification, would construe the
elasticized dart 15 to comprise a stitched fold formed by (1)
folding material along an elongate fold line and (2) stitching
the sides of the folded material together so as to enclose a
length of the folded material in such a manner that the stitching
tapers to a point coincident with the fold line at each end, thus
forming an upstanding wet guard. Clearly there is nothing in
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007