Appeal No. 96-1410
Application No. 08/321,384
Next we turn to the rationale for the rejection of claim 1
as being anticipated by Meyer as set forth by the examiner in the
examiner's answer. In the examiner's answer, the examiner stated
Based upon preferred ranges, Meyer et al. set forth
preferred embodiments in which the density of the transfer
layer is, in some instances, as high as 0.12 g/cc (column 7,
lines 9-13). However, in any preferred embodiment, the
density of the reservoir layer is no lower than about 0.15
g/cc, because the preferred basis weight is about 800 g/m2
and the bulk thickness ranges from 0.17 to 0.21 inches
(column 5, lines 15-21), and the density of the cover layer
is no greater than about 0.11 g/cc, because the preferred
basis weight is about 0.8 ounces/yd and the preferred bulk2
thickness ranges from 0.010 to 0.012 inches (column 4, lines
41-46). Therefore, numerous embodiments in the preferred
realm defined by Meyer et al. possess a positive density
gradient from the cover layer to the reservoir layer. [p. 2]
We will not support this rationale for the rejection of
claim 1. For this rationale for the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) to have been proper, Meyer must clearly and
unequivocally disclose the claimed subject matter without any
need for picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures not
directly related to each other by the teachings of Meyer. Such
picking and choosing may be entirely proper in the making of a
35 U.S.C. § 103, obviousness rejection, where the applicant must
be afforded an opportunity to rebut with objective evidence any
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007