Appeal No. 99-0920
Application No. 08/629,323
In our study of the original specification disclosure, we
find nothing and the appellants point to nothing which would
reasonably convey to an artisan that the appellants had
possession on the filing date of adhesive zone shapes other
than those which are like or form a ring, which is to say
annular shapes. More specifically, this disclosure would not
reasonably convey shapes which are curvilinear but not
annular, that is, shapes which are “characterized by curved
lines” but not “like or forming a ring”. Indeed, it is
questionable whether shapes which are “characterized by curved
lines” but not “like or forming a ring” would be even capable
of achieving the function performed by this aspect of the
appellants’ invention (i.e., underpant leg-holes formed via
adhesive zones with elastic members bonded thereto).
Certainly, the appellants do not point to and we do no
independently find any portion of the originally filed
disclosure which would reasonably convey possession of
“curvilinear adhesive
zones” which are “characterized by curved lines” but not
“[s]haped like or forming a ring” and which are capable of
achieving the function in question.
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007