Appeal No. 2006-1493
Application No. 10/037,276
1 a reading of the language “minimum longitudinal length” along the principal
2 longitudinal axis as being something less than the length of the entire extent
3 of the absorbent along the principal longitudinal axis. Such a reading would
4 require an unreasonable distortion of the term “length” as that term is
5 ordinarily understood.
6 McFall’s Fig. 1 clearly illustrates the length along the longitudinal
7 centerline L as the maximum longitudinal length of the absorbent.
8 Therefore, the longitudinal length along the principal longitudinal axis
9 (longitudinal centerline L) cannot be “less than said maximum longitudinal
10 length” as called for in Appellants’ claims. McFall discloses that the
11 absorbent portion 22 can be formed in any suitable configuration, including,
12 for example, ovoid, elliptical, trapezoidal, rectangular, triangular, diamond-
13 shaped, or any combination thereof (col. 5, ll. 29-33), but none of these
14 shapes would appear to satisfy the claim limitation in question, for the
15 reasons discussed above. Accordingly, we cannot sustain either of the
16 Examiner’s rejections.
17
18 SUMMARY
19 The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-18 and 22-35 is
20 REVERSED.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013