Ex parte WIDLUND et al. - Page 5

          Appeal No. 1999-2678                                                        
          Application 08/704,705                                                      

          of the language employed in the claims must be analyzed, not                
          in a vacuum, but always in light of the teachings of the prior              
          art and of the                                                              
          particular application disclosure as it would be interpreted                
          by one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent              
          art.  Id.                                                                   

               When claims 12 through 30 are read in light of the                     
          disclosure, the only concern of the examiner which proves to                
          be well founded is the one involving the definition of the                  
          opening edges in claims 12 and 29.  These claims require that               
          “each” of the first and second openings has longitudinal and                
          front and rear part lateral edges and crotch part lateral                   
          edges.  In contrast, the underlying disclosure (see Figure 2                
          and specification page 5) indicates that each opening has two               
          longitudinal edges 20, 21 or 18, 19, either a front or a rear               
          part lateral edge 23 or 22, and one crotch part lateral edge                
          (unnumbered) adjacent bridge region 17.  This discrepancy                   
          between claims 12 and 29 and the underlying disclosure renders              
          the scope of these claims unclear.                                          


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007