Appeal No. 2006-1769
Application No. 09/784,292
on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their
broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” Phillips v.
AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (quoting In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). We interpret the
term “leg edge” to be that edge of the panel member that, when
combined with the chassis, forms the leg opening. (See specification,
page 16, lines 12-14). Further, we find that the leg end edge of the
panel members can rest on the wearer’s hip or anywhere else along the
wearer’s leg. This interpretation finds support in the specification,
which describes the side panels (34) to “include the portions of the
training pant 20 which, when worn, are positioned on the hips of the
wearer.” (Specification, page 16, lines 3-5). Based on this
interpretation, we find that the strap members (40) of Kuen ‘162 have
leg edges.
With regard to the interchangeability of straps that are
releasably connected on both ends with straps that are permanently
connected on one end and releasably connected on the other end, the
appellants argue that it is only the permanently connected area at the
back waist region that derives any benefit from non-parallel strap
member edges. The appellant describes the benefit as a larger bond
area for a stronger,
-9-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007