Appeal 2007-0283
Application 09/849,594
critical to prevent the elastic member from passing outside the second
pattern of thermal bonds,” citing column 10, lines 20-30, and Figs. 3 and 4
(id. 3-4). Appellants contend “spacing that is far enough apart to possibly
allow an elastic member to pass between the bond points . . . would certainly
not result in a leak-proof seal” (id. 4). Appellants contend the difference in
location and quality of the bond patterns in of the bond lines in Bridges and
Kielpikowski establishes there is no suggestion to combine the references,
and the use of Kielpikowski’s bond pattern in Bridges would result in a
design that is weak or incapable of tearing (id.).
Appellants contend “[t]he meaning of the limitation ‘along an edge’ is
clear on its face within the context of the language of the claims” and as
interpreted in view of the Specification and Fig. 1 showing bond points
along an edge (Reply Br. 4). Appellants contend Bridges does not disclose
the tear line along the edge of any layer and “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 58-61, thus teaching away
from positioning the tear line along the edges of the inner and outer layers
(id. 4-5). Appellants contend Bridges does not suggest attaching
containment flaps to a garment with a plurality of ultrasonic bonds and
Kielpikowski discloses “bond patterns for securing an elastic member within
a containment flap” without “motivation to space the bond points close
enough to render the seam ‘leak-proof’” (id. 5).
The issues in this appeal are whether the Examiner has carried the
burden of establishing a prima facie case in the ground of rejection advanced
on appeal.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013