Appeal No. 2006-0806
Application 09/954,807
We refer to the answer and to the brief and reply brief for a complete exposition of the
positions advanced by the examiner and appellants.
The dispositive issue in this appeal is the interpretation to be made of the claim language
“the [spunbond] nonwoven is bonded with a pattern having continuous bonded areas defining a
plurality of discrete unbonded areas” which appears in each of independent claims 1, 13 and 29.
We interpret the claim language by giving the terms thereof the broadest reasonable
interpretation in their ordinary usage in context as they would be understood by one of ordinary
skill in the art in light of the written description in the specification unless another meaning is
intended by appellants as established in the written description of the specification, and without
reading into the claims any limitation or particular embodiment disclosed in the specification.
See, e.g., In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed.
Cir. 2004); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
The examiner finds that the disclosure at Midkiff col. 7, ll. 55-57, reads on the subject
claim language. Appellants reply that the claim language is specifically defined at page 8, l. 28,
to page 9, l. 11, noting that the “continuous bonded areas . . . encircle, or surround each
unbonded area” (e.g., reply brief, page 2; original emphasis deleted).
We find that in context, Midkiff would have disclosed a process using a “hot air knife” to
pre- or primary bond the just produced spunbond web “to give it sufficient integrity, i.e.,
increase the stiffness of the web, for further processing,” and then a “through-air bonding” as a
“secondary bonding step” which “provides sufficient heat to bond fibers not bonded” by the hot
air knife, the combination producing “high stiffness in the web” which “creates bonds at almost
every fiber crossover point, thereby restricting movement of the majority of the web” (col. 7,
ll. 14-57; see also col. 4, l. 24, to col. 5, l. 6, and col. 5, ll. 21-43). Midkiff would have further
described the result by disclosing that “[t]hermal point bonding by contrast results in the bonds
at discrete points, thereby allowing the fibers between the bond points the freedom to bend and
rotate individually and so producing a much smaller increase in stiffness and so is not an
acceptable bonding process for this invention” (col. 7, ll. 57-62).
The examiner submits that “the web of Midkiff has bonds at almost every fiber crossover
point” which reads on the structure specified by the subject claim language
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007