Appeal No. 1997-3103
Application 08/449,647
density, can be a low density region (answer, page 5).
Claim 7 requires that the sites of the hydrogel polymer
in the apertures are disposed on low density regions, not that
the apertures themselves are low density regions. Thus, the
examiner’s criticism of the clarity of the claims is not well
founded. The examiner has not provided the required
explanation as to why the language of appellant’s claims, as
it would have been interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the
art in light of appellant’s specification and the prior art,
fails to set out and circumscribe a particular area with a
reasonable degree of precision and particularity.
The examiner argues that the blind holes recited in claim
12 are densified regions created by compressing and embossing
a fibrous substrate and, therefore, cannot be apertures, which
are openings or holes (answer, page 6). Appellant’s use of
“apertures” to include blind holes, the examiner argues, is
repugnant to the ordinary meaning of “apertures” and,
therefore, renders the claim indefinite (answer, page 9).
During patent prosecution, claims are to be given their
-5-5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007