Appeal No. 1999-2630
Application 08/341,464
describes the diaper fastener formed from the stock, not the
stock itself
as urged by the examiner. Furthermore, given the manner in
which the original specification (see pages 15 and 16 and the
incorporation by reference on page 15 of U.S. Patent No.
4,020,842 to Richman et al.) employs the term “reclosable” in
its
description of the diaper fastener shown in Figure 12, one of 1
ordinary skill in the art would understand the appellants’ use
of this term as being generally descriptive of a fastener which
can be opened and closed a plurality of times. Hence, the
content of original claim 10, considered in conjunction with
the rest of the originally filed disclosure, would reasonably
convey to the artisan that the appellants had possession at
that time of a diaper as recited in claim 6 including a user
joint which is openable, refastenable and reopenable.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, rejection of claims 6 and 9.
1Although the appellants are of the view that “Figure 12
relates to a . . . fastener embodying the subject matter of
the claims” (main brief, page 2), it is not readily apparent
how the limitations in appealed claim 6 can be read on a
diaper having the fasteners shown in Figure 12.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007