Appeal 2007-2214
Application 10/032,383
Examiner argues that “one can consider a smaller portion of the fastener as
[having] the second shear strength and a larger portion of the fastener as
[having] the first shear strength” (Answer 10). We agree with this
interpretation.
The Specification indicates that a difference in shear strength can be
provided by having a greater surface area of active fastening material on one
end of a fastener relative to the other end of the fastener (Specification 19).
In fact, claim 12 (which depends on claim 11) specifically recites that “the
portion of active fastening material at the anchor end and the portion of the
active fastening material at the user end have different surface areas
corresponding to said first and second shear strengths.”
Claim 52, on which claim 11 depends, also recites that the fastener
comprises “a single piece of flexible material having an active fastening
surface extending continuously thereon, . . . the active fastening surface
being covered substantially in entirety by an active fastening material.” As a
result, the difference in shear strength in claims 11 and 12 can depend on
how the fastener is attached to the landing regions, rather than on an actual
difference between the two ends of the fastener. For example, if the fastener
is applied to the landing material such that the anchor end of the fastener
overlaps with its corresponding landing material to a greater extent than the
user end of the fastener overlaps with its corresponding landing material, the
anchor end would have a greater shear strength than the user end. Thus, we
interpret claim 11 to include fasteners that are configured such that, when
the anchor and user ends are attached to the landing material, the anchor end
would have a greater shear strength than the user end.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013