Interference No. 105,019
Correa v. Roberts
There is no assertion by Correa that base claim 20 of Roberts is without written description
support in the specification. The issue here is focused on the requirement that "said flaps
comprising said topsheet, said backsheet, and said barrier elements."
According to Correa, the feature "said flaps comprising said topsheet, said backsheet, and
said barrier elements" means that the barrier elements must also extend along with the other parts
of the flap, i.e., the topsheet and the backsheet. We have already determined that based on its
dictionary definition, "flap" means "something broad and flexible, or flat and thin, that hangs
loosely, attached at one side only." For the flaps to comprise the topsheet, backsheet, and the
barrier elements as is recited in Roberts' claim 23, we agree with Correa that the barrier elements
must also reach out along the direction of extension of the flap, together with the topsheet and the
backsheet. In other words, the barrier elements must take part in the nature of the flaps as flaps.
An opposing view would not be reasonable. It is not necessary that all such extensions terminate
at the same end point. However, they must each take part in the extension of the flaps as flaps.
We reject Roberts' argument that mere attachment of the barrier elements to the flaps
satisfies the claim requirement of said flaps comprising said topsheet, said backsheet, and said
barrier elements. Mere attachment is a concept so broad that it does not imply an extension or
reach in any particular direction, including the direction of extension of the flap. For example,
in the last paragraph beginning on page 25 of Robert's specification, it is stated:
- 20
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007