Appeal 2007-0486
Application 10/441,484
appealed claims 11, 12, and 14 read on the subject matter described by
Ruddy.
We start with a brief review of the claimed subject matter. All of the
rejected claims require a towel with a body material layer having a plurality
of protrusive ridges formed by sewing, which ridges delineate a plurality of
separated panels of the towel body material. These two claim features are
recited as contributing to towel properties that are qualitatively and
functionally related in claim 11. The claimed towel is said to be
“ergonomically designed” and possessed of “hand reactive cleaning-dusting”
capabilities or qualities (cl. 11).
The protrusive ridges and separated panels are repeatedly recited as
contributing to the handling properties and ease of using the towel with a
user’s hand. In this regard, claim 11 refers to hand-grip qualities and
maneuverability of the towel. The ridges are said to “automatically tend to
fold at a seam site when said towel is applied to a surface or put into motion
by contact with a said user’s hand” (cl. 11). The ridges are said to allow for
finger hold and “ease of scrunching or wadding of said towel within a user’s
hand” (id.). In light of this pattern of recitations in claim 11 and upon
review of the Specification, we interpret the additional recitation in claim 11
of “a means for superior finger grip, hand grasp, and handling properties”
(cl. 11) as another one of the several ways claim 11 qualitatively describes
the handling properties of the towel based on the ridge/panel construction
thereof. In other words, this “means” clause is not the recitation of another
feature of the claimed towel but rather a recitation of a functional
characteristic required as a property of the towel; that is, this limitation
requires that the towel can be grasped with the hand, gripped by the finger[s]
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013