Ex Parte Newton - Page 6


                Appeal 2006-3343                                                                             
                Application 10/372,564                                                                       
           1          The Examiner has also found that Denesuk teaches heavy weight non-                     
           2    woven stabilized non-stretch fabric material for bedding articles.  (Id. p. 2, ll.           
           3    19-20).                                                                                      
           4          The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of                       
           5    ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ the                   
           6    heavy weight non-woven stabilized non-stretch fabric material as taught by                   
           7    Denesuk in Chamberlain, as the material was known to be suitable.  Id. p. 2,                 
           8    l. 21- p. 3, l. 3.                                                                           
           9          The Appellant urges that Chamberlain “teaches only a bed sheet 10                      
          10    formed of conventional fabric material” (Br. p. 8, ll. 10-11) (emphasis in                   
          11    original) whereas the Appellant’s claimed fabric is a disposable contour                     
          12    sheet of non-woven stabilizing interfacing fabric. (Id. p. 8, ll. 12-14).                    
          13          The thrust of this argument appears to be that Chamberlain must be                     
          14    limited to a conventional “bed sheet” material which would thus render the                   
          15    claimed non-woven stabilized interfacing fabric nonobvious because it is not                 
          16    normally used as a bed sheet material. (Id. P. 10, l. 7-9).                                  
          17          Prior to addressing the merits of the rejections, we consider the scope                
          18    and meaning of certain terms that appear in appealed claim 1.  Gechter v.                    
          19    Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 1460 n.3, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032, 1035 n.3                      
          20    (Fed. Cir. 1997).  In proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark                       
          21    Office (PTO), unpatented claims must be interpreted by giving words their                    
          22    broadest reasonable meanings in their ordinary usage, taking into account                    
          23    the written description found in the specification.  In re Morris, 127 F.3d                  
          24    1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).                                           



                                                     6                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013