Appeal 2007-0283
Application 09/849,594
Appellants reply “whether a seam is leak-proof is based on the ability
of liquid to pass between the seam between the bonded elements” and
“[l]iquid permeability is determined by the ability of a liquid to pass
perpendicularly through the individual layers” (Reply Br. 2; original
emphasis deleted). Appellants contend on this basis Bridges’ bond points do
not render the tear line leak proof and there is no suggestion in the reference
the flow of liquid across the tear line is prevented, arguing “[i]n fact, once
the tear line is torn, the bonds points are destroyed and any evidence of a
‘seam’ is certainly not leak-proof as achieved in the manner of Appellants’
leak-proof seam” (id.; original emphasis deleted). Appellants contend the
addition of more bond points to the rows of Bridges “would likely render the
tear line unsatisfactory . . . [as] too strong to permit tearing” (id. 2-3).
Appellants contend Bridges does not suggest both the inner and outer layer
are liquid-impermeable as disclosing the outer layer is preferably
hydrophobic does not indicate liquid-impermeability (id. 3).
Appellants contend Bridges differs from the claimed invention in not
disclosing or suggesting the rows of bond points, bonding liquid-
impermeable layers, bonding along the edge of at least one layer, or a
containment flap bonded to a garment (Reply Br. 3). Appellants contend
Kielpikowski discloses bond lines for securing an elastic member within a
containment flap with the bond lines illustrated in Fig. 4 “described as an
example of minimized use of thermal bonds in the containment flap,” citing
column 10, lines 1-3 (id.). Appellants contend Kielpikowski “suggests that
the pattern of thermal bonds located between the elastic member and the
proximal edge may be spaced relatively far apart because it is not entirely
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013