Appeal No. 96-1410
Application No. 08/321,384
inference of obviousness which may arise from the similarity of
the subject matter which he claims to the prior art, but it has
no place in the making of a 35 U.S.C. § 102, anticipation
rejection. See In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587, 172 USPQ 524,
526 (CCPA 1972). It is our opinion that Meyer does not 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. Meyer
does not disclose selecting the density of the transport/transfer
layer as 0.12 g/cc. Meyer actually discloses the preferred
density of the transport/transfer layer to be within the range of
about 0.08-0.12 g/cc (column 7, lines 9-13). Thus, the density
of the preferred transport/transfer layer can be lower than the
density of the topsheet layer. Accordingly, Meyer does not
disclose a predetermined positive density gradient from the
topsheet layer to the transport/transfer layer.
For the reasons stated above, we will not sustain the
examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, and dependent claims
2 through 6, 8, 10, 13 and 15 through 17, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Meyer.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007