Ex parte BOULANGER - Page 8

          Appeal No. 1999-0441                                                        
          Application No. 08/676,454                                                  

          written description contained in appellant’s specification.                 
          In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed.               
          Cir. 1997).  In the present instance, we are in accord with                 
          appellant that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have              
          viewed the folded over portions 4-6 of Pigneul, which are                   
          bonded to the cover layer at only two discrete gluing points 8              
          between the ends 6, as being bonded to the cover layer                      
               along each respective longitudinal edge of said main                   
               body with the exception of at least a portion of a                     
               line of intersection between each tab and said main                    
               body remaining unbonded to form a pocket adjacent to                   
               each tab which is capable of collecting body                           
          as called for in claim 1, or as called for in similar language              
          found in independent claims 10 and 18.  This is especially so               
          when this claim language is read within the context of the                  
          underlying disclosure, which informs the artisan that the                   
          folded over portions are bonded to the edges of the main body               
          with either discrete or continuous elongated thermal bonds 18               
          “which run from points near the end corners of the body 2 to                
          points where the tabs 3” (specification, page 8).  Given the                
          generally accepted dictionary definition of “along” (i.e.,                  
          “over the length of”) posited by appellant on page 5 of the                 
          Reply Brief, and the enlightenment afforded by appellant’s                  

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007