Appeal Number: 2006-2531
Application Number: 09/910,641
adhered thereto reasonably can be considered to correspond to
the appellant’s flexible pad. Also, Yonkers discloses in
another embodiment that the surface of the flexible plastic film
itself (i.e., no mass of traction material present) can be
crosscut or hatched to provide traction and thereby perform the
function of the mass of traction material (col. 3, line 54 –
col. 4, line 2).
The appellant argues that the appellant’s specification
states that the pad in figures 1 and 2 is a single piece and
that, therefore, “pad” in the appellant’s claims means “single
piece pad” (brief, pages 10 and 15-16; reply brief, pages 2-3).
The appellant’s specification does not define “pad” as being
limited to one piece but, rather, merely discloses that as an
embodiment. Hence, the specification does not limit the
broadest reasonable interpretation of “pad” in the appellant’s
claims to “single piece pad”.
The appellant argues that the lower surface of Yonkers’
plastic film is not covered with indicia but, rather, is coated
with adhesive and traction material (brief, page 11 and 13-15).
If Yonkers’ structure including the plastic film and traction
material is considered to correspond to the appellant’s flexible
pad, then the color applied to the traction material (col. 4,
lines 10-13) is applied to the lower surface of the pad.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013