Appeal No. 2006-1394
Application No. 09/885,188
in ordinary usage is not distinguished in composition from the “second elastomeric
polymer” but merely lists the order of the polymers, i.e., the scope of the claim includes the
first and second elastomeric polymers being identical. We find no express disclaimer of
this broad definition in appellants’ specification, but merely a preference for differences in
composition of the first and second elastomeric polymers (see page 3, ll. 10-20; page 12,
ll. 15-17; and page 20, ll. 2-9).1 Accordingly, in view of our claim construction, we
determine that the different longitudinal tension zones created by different spacing and
diameters of the same composition elastomeric strands of Melbye describe the claimed
limitation of low and high tension zones (see Melbye, page 17, ll. 1-7, and Figure 8).
Appellants argue that Cederblad “teaches away” from combination of the netting
bonded to any additional material, such as the claimed facing materials (Brief, page 6;
Reply Brief,
page 5). As discussed above, in view of our claim construction, Cederblad is not
necessary to the rejection since Melbye discloses the claimed high and low tension zones.
Furthermore, Cederblad discloses that the use of different materials to provide different
elastic tensions was known in this art, thus establishing an equivalency between the
spacing/different diameters of strands used by Melbye to create the same zones of high
1We note that dependent claims 3 and 4 have not been separately argued.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007