Appeal No. 1997-3103
Application 08/449,647
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Rejection of claim 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph
The examiner argues that appellant’s blind holes are
densified regions formed by compressing and embossing a
fibrous substrate and, therefore, do not further limit
“apertures”, which are openings (answer, page 6).
As discussed above, an aperture can be a hole, which is
an opening into or through anything. Appellant’s claim 12
limits “apertures” to openings into, but not through, the
substrate, i.e., blind holes. Claim 12, therefore, further
limits claim 3 from which it indirectly depends.
Consequently, we reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
fourth paragraph.
Prior art rejections
Appellant separately argues only claim 13 with respect to
the prior art rejections (revised brief, filed February 27,
1997, paper no. 24, pages 2 and 5). Thus, we limit our
discussion to
-7-7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007