Appeal No. 2005-2531
Application No. 10/148,759
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification, does not exclude the previously discussed
repeating units and nonapertured region of the figures 9-13
member2 (e.g., claim 1 does not require that the plurality of
repeating units abut one another at the upper and lower
boundaries).
Therefore, in response to this remand, the examiner (and the
appellants) must address and resolve on the written record of
this application whether some or all of the pending claims should
be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 35 U.S.C. § 103 over, for
example, either Fahrenkrug or Palumbo based on the reasoning and
analysis set forth above.
This remand to the examiner pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(a)(1)
(effective September 13, 2004, 69 Fed. Reg. 49960 (August 12,
2004), 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (September 7, 2004)) is not
made for further consideration of a rejection. Accordingly,
37 CFR § 41.50(a)(2) does not apply.
2On specification page 17, the first full paragraph and
particularly the last sentence thereof indicates that the
apertured elastic member of figures 9-13 constitutes prior art.
The appellants should clarify whether this member is indeed prior
art.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007