Appeal No. 2001-1884
Application No. 08/718,692
The appellants argue that Bradley does not teach or suggest
“permanently uniting the first and second webs which have been
subjected to the surface activation treatment . . . . ” We are
not persuaded by this argument.
First, upon giving the phrase “permanently uniting”4 the
broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification,
we determine that the phrase does not exclude the permanent
bonding of the type exemplified in Bradley. Specifically, the
phrase in question embraces those webs which remain “permanently
bonded” at ambient condition (but are not permanently bonded
(separated) in boiling water) as exemplified at column 7, lines
30-37, of Bradley.
Second, even if we were to conclude the phrase “permanently
uniting” in the claims on appeal excludes the bonded webs
exemplified in Bradley, we still find “ample suggestion” in
Bradley itself to “permanently bond” the webs described therein.
Specifically, we find that Bradley teaches at column 7, lines 19-
30, that:
Apparently, in the present process, chemical linkages are
4 The specification does not define the meaning of the
phrase “permanently bonding.” See the specification in its
entirety. Nor does it indicate conditions at which the claimed
webs are permanently bonded. Id.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007