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.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007