Case No. IP-2015-000205

80.It was accepted by FDS that Coslett disclosed a three-layered fabric of the sort used for the invention in the Patent to make the side panels and the use of ultrasonic bonding to join the layers. Mr St Quintin submitted that even if, as Mr Brinkley had accepted, the ultrasonic bonding would have led to an aperture in the elastic layer and bonding of the inner and outer layers, there was nothing in Coslett to lead the skilled person towards the idea of creating a breathable fabric by means of annular vents around the zone of bonding. 81.Ms Becke accepted that Coslett did not say that the fabric it disclosed was breathable. Therefore the skilled person could only by inference understand Coslett to disclose any kind of vent. She drew that inference, but on the vague basis that this was how ultrasonic bonding works. Ms Becke did not suggest that the skilled person, having read Coslett, would think of creating annular vents. 82.Mr Brinkley, as I have mentioned above, agreed that the non-woven outer layers of the fabric disclosed in Coslett would bind across the aperture in the elastic layer created by ultrasonic bonding. He did not concede that the skilled person would expect holes to be formed in the inner and outer layers. He was not asked about annular vents. 83.In my view it would not occur to the skilled person reading Coslett that bond sites could or would be formed in the form envisaged by Mr Brinkley, with annular vents. 84.Amended claims 1 and 9 would not lack inventive step.