Appeal No. 2002-1080 16
Application No. 09/372,149
claimed subject matter when read in light thereof. Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating
& Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 573-74 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Appellant’s specification (paragraph spanning pages 3 and 4) informs the artisan
that the tack adhesive layer “may include any tack adhesive for temporarily attaching
the resilient sheet member 110 to the sole of the foot 200,” that adhesives used, for
example, “in BAND-AIDS™, POST-IT NOTES™, feminine pads, and the like may be
used as the tack adhesive layer 120,” and that preferably the tack adhesive used in the
tack adhesive layer 120 “is sticky enough to reliably hold the foot protector 100 against
the foot 200, but is not so sticky that it causes difficulty or discomfort in removing the
foot protector 100 from the sole of the foot 200.” From our perspective, one versed in
the art, consistent with these guidelines, would understand the term “low tack adhesive”
to cover a range of adhesives, including both relatively weak adhesives like those used
in POST-IT NOTES™ and relatively stronger adhesives like those used in BAND-
AIDS™, so long as the adhesive is strong enough to reliably hold the foot protector to
the sole of the foot, yet not so strong as to cause difficulty in removing the foot
protector.
In our view, the “relatively strong” adhesive 92 (column 3, lines 5-6) used by
McCarthy to hold sheet member 90, and thus shoe bottom 10, to the foot qualifies as a
“low tack” adhesive within the meaning of that term as used in appellant’s claim. In
arriving at this conclusion, we note that (1) the adhesives of McCarthy are preferably
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007