Appeal No. 99-0920
Application No. 08/629,323
As for claim 34, it is the examiner’s contention that
this claim is rendered indefinite because the “symmetrically
disposed” limitation in step c is inconsistent with the
“deforming” limitation in step d. In our view, this position
has some merit. Moreover, it is significant that the
appellants have not specifically rebutted this position but
instead have simply stated that it is their “opinion that
claim 34 defines the invention in a sufficiently definite
manner” (brief, page 8).
Under these circumstances, it is our determination that claim
34 is indefinite for the reasons expressed by the examiner in
the answer.
In addition to the foregoing, we point out that claim 34
is inaccurate in that it recites laying a first continuous
elastic member to bond with adhesive zones in step b and then
recites deforming the first continuous elastic member to form
a flat region in step d. In contrast, the paragraph bridging
columns 4 and 5 of the appellants’ reissue specification
discloses that a flat region of the first elastic member is
formed during (not after as indicated by the aforementioned
claim 34 recitation) the laying step. In this regard, it is
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007