Appeal No. 96-1410
Application No. 08/321,384
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
We will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 1 as
being anticipated by Meyer. In that regard, we agree with the
appellants that the "positive density gradient" recited in claim
1 is not anticipated by Meyer.
Claim 1 recites, inter alia,
A unitized absorbent structure having respective
cover, transfer, and reservoir layers, . . .
[wherein] said respective layers have a
predetermined positive density gradient from the
cover layer to the reservoir layer.
Thus, claim 1 requires both a predetermined positive density
gradient from the cover layer to the transfer layer and a
predetermined positive density gradient from the transfer layer
to the reservoir layer.
Initially, we note that the examiner's rationale for this
rejection in the final rejection is different from the rationale
set forth in the examiner's answer.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007