Appeal No. 2007-0517
Application No. 10/768,647
As to obviousness, "[u]nder § 103, the scope and content of the prior art are
to be determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be
ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved." Graham v.
John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-11
Applicants correctly point out that the Examiner has construed Applicant’s
splicing region of claims 1-12 as follows:
One or more of the holes in the splicing material of Roslund could
constitute the first spliced region because they fall within the
boundaries of the piece of splicing material.
(Examiner’s Answer, Response to Argument, p. 6). Yet, independent claims 1 and
12 explicitly define the splicing regions as follows:
[A] ttaching a piece of splicing material to said trailing end of the first
portion to define a first spliced region and to said leading end of the
second portion to define a second spliced region
(Appeal Brief, Claims 1 and 12).
While the Examiner’s construction of Applicant’s claim language is broad, it
is not reasonable given the plain language of the claims. Claims 1-12 define the
splicing regions as those portions where a splicing material is attached to the
absorbent material. One or more holes in the splicing material would not
themselves constitute the spliced region as there is no “attachment” at that point.
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013