Appeal 2007-0283
Application 09/849,594
teaches “a configuration wherein at least one of the bond points in each of
the rows is equally spaced apart from at least three other bond points as
shown in Fig. 4 as bond element 25 allows a sufficiently strong, yet soft and
flexible bonded material” (id. 3-4). The Examiner concludes it would have
been obvious “to have formed the bonds in Bridges according to the pattern
shown in Fig. 4 of” Kielpikowski in the expectation “this configuration of
points bonds imparts excellent strength to the bonded material, while still
being soft and flexible” (id. 4).
Appellants contend, with respect to claims 1, 14, and 27, Bridges
“discloses a ‘tear line,’ which . . . is a line of bond points that is designed to
be torn apart” and thus, does not “suggest a bond or seal that is leak-proof”
(Br. 4). Appellants contend Bridges “discloses that the weakness of the tear
line is optimized such that the tear line is sufficiently weak to permit
tearing” (id.). Appellants contend Bridges Fig. 1E shows “at most there are
three parallel rows of bond points . . . but each row does not include at least
one bond point that is equally spaced apart from at least three other bond
points” and “[t]he ‘zig-zag’ pattern . . . [in Fig. 1E] may be conducive to
creating the tear line . . . but would not likely prevent leakage through a
seam bonded in this configuration” (id.). Appellants contend the claimed
“ultrasonic bond pattern . . . creates a considerably strong bond between two
or more substrates with a reduced likelihood of tearing or unbonding
compared to a continuous ultrasonic bond, and with the added feature of
preventing leakage through the pattern of bonds,” and Bridges’ suggestion
of ultrasonic bonds “to form a zone of weakness” would not render obvious
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013