Appeal No. 2005-0961
Application No. 09/990,787
contacting.” Similarly, the term “comprising” leaves claim 1
open to the inclusion of additional liner structures such as a
hydrophobic layer between the recited hydrophilic layer and a
user’s body. See In re Baxter, 656 F.2d 679, 686, 210 USPQ 795,
802 (CCPA 1981)(“comprising” leaves claims open to inclusion of
other elements, materials, etc.). Moreover, it is appropriate to
remind the appellants of the earlier mentioned legal principle
that, during examination proceedings, claims are given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification. Hyatt, 211 F.2d at 1372, 54 USPQ2d at 1667.
Certainly, interpreting appealed claim 1 to encompass a multiple
layer embodiment of the type taught by Chen is reasonable and
consistent with the subject specification (e.g., see the last
paragraph on specification page 9 which teaches that the liner
may comprise multiple layers).
Third, the appellants’ argument also is unpersuasive because
Chen’s bodyside layer (i.e., his body-contacting layer) comprises
a mixture of both hydrophobic as well as hydrophilic fibers
(e.g., see the last paragraph on page 5 in comparison with
Figures 1 and 5). When broadly interpreted, appealed claim 1
encompasses an embodiment of the type taught by Chen wherein the
bodyside or body-contacting layer includes both hydrophilic and
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007