Appeal No. 1996-3939
Application 08/295,635
V. Claims 1 through 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable on the
basis of Lilley, Emi and Sipinen.
We affirm the rejection based upon Madsen and reverse all rejections based upon
Lilley.
DISCUSSION
In determining issues raised under 35 U.S.C. § 102 “the first inquiry must be into
exactly what the claims define.” In re Wilder, 429 F.2d 447, 450, 166 USPQ 545, 548
(CCPA 1970). Here, the claims on appeal are directed to “extruded netting.” We believe
that a proper construction or interpretation of this phrase disposes of the issues on appeal.
In reading the paragraph bridging pages 4-5 of the specification, it is apparent that
one feature of an extruded netting according to the present invention is that the resin
strands which form the netting should show or possess “good joint bond strength.” By this
we take it that an “extruded netting” according to the present invention must have bonded
strands. For reasons which follow, it is our view that the netting described in Lilley does
not have bonded strands while that described in Madsen does.
The netting described in Lilley may be “woven, knitted, netted or the like.” (Lilley,
page 1, column 2, lines 10-14.) We find no disclosure in Lilley which suggests that elastic
strands (10) are bonded in any manner to nonelastic strands (12). Nor does the examiner
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007