Appeal 2007-0486
Application 10/441,484
The Examiner argues that “Claim 14 is directed to a tuft … and …
[s]ince claim 14 teaches a tuft, which is different than a tuck and can not be
part of a tuck, claim 14’s dependence on claim 12 renders it unclear”
(Answer 3).
The Examiner, however, does not fairly explain why the claim
language, as it would have been interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art
in light of Appellants’ Specification and the prior art, fails to set out and
circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and
particularity. In this regard, claim 12 merely sets forth a sewing technique
that is used in forming the protrusive ridges (a product-by–process
limitation). It is not clear from the Examiner’s rejection how the additional
requirement for a protrusive ridge (designated as a tuft) formed at or near the
location where two bodies of material are adjoined using a seam, which
seam has a seam allowance is indefinite because of the dependency of claim
14 on claim 12. Consequently, we reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph.
REMAND
We remand this application to the Examiner to order the Examiner to
consider whether claims 13 and/or 14 would have been obvious within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over any of the prior art of record, alone or in
combination together with any other prior art that the Examiner is or may
become aware of upon reconsideration of the claimed subject matter. For
example, the Examiner should determine whether claim 13 would have been
obvious, within the meaning of § 103(a), over either Eng or Hoffman in that
locating a seam at the distance recited in claim 13 from a folded edge of
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013