Appeal 2007-0283
Application 09/849,594
Appellants contend there is no suggestion to combine Bridges and
Kielpikowski leading to an improved leak-proof seal because Bridges
“discloses a ‘tear line’ extending from a waist opening to a leg opening in
the front of the garment,” Kielpikowski “discloses containment flap
constructions that include an elastic member bonded between to layers,” and
thus, the bond patterns are in different locations and of different qualities
(Br. 6-7). Appellants contend Kielpikowski’s bond pattern “is designed to
maintain an elastic member between two layers and is not designed to be
weak or capable of tearing” (id. 7).
Appellants contend claims 1 and 27 require “at least two layers of
liquid-impermeable material are bonded together alone an edge of at least
one of the layers” (Br. 7). Appellants contend Bridges does not teach or
suggest a tear line along the edge of any layer, arguing the reference
“suggests that the side seams may be constructed with maximum strength if
the tear line is located other than at the side seams,” citing column 3,
lines 61-63 (id.).
Appellants contend claim 14 requires “the leak proof seal bonds a
containment flap to a garment,” which is not taught or suggested by Bridges
as “the tear lines . . . are located on a front portion of the garment” or by
Kielpikowski in disclosing “bond patterns for securing an elastic member
within a containment flap” (Br. 7-8).
The Examiner responds Bridges’ seams are tearable but do not open
during use and Appellants provide no evidence supporting the contention
Bridges’ bonding patterns are “likely” to leak (Answer 4). The Examiner
contends Bridges uses water proof layers and the ultrasonic bonds used in
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013