Appeal No. 2000-0301 Page 6
Application No. 08/690,402
crescent-shape portion" as recited in the claims under appeal.
All the claims under appeal require the claimed pair of
elasticized cuffs to include either "a substantially crescent-
shape portion" as recited in claim 1 or "a crescent-shape
portion" as recited in claim 6. However, it is our opinion
that these limitations are not taught or suggested by the
combined teaching of the applied prior art.
To supply this omission in the teachings of the applied
prior art, the examiner made determinations (answer, pp. 4-10)
that this difference does not provide any new result or solve
any recognized problem in the art and that the cuffs of Kido
are "substantially crescent-shaped."
In proceedings before the United States Patent and
Trademark Office (USPTO), the USPTO applies to the verbiage of
the claims before it the broadest reasonable meaning of the
words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by
one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007