Ex parte MAYER et al. - Page 2




              Appeal No. 2000-1728                                                               Page 2                
              Application No. 08/785,128                                                                               


                                                   BACKGROUND                                                          
                     The appellants’ invention relates to a sanitary napkin.  An understanding of the                  
              invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which appears in the                       
              appendix to the Brief.                                                                                   
                     The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the                   
              appealed claims are:                                                                                     
              DesMarais                                 4,425,130                   Jan. 10, 1984                      
              Visscher et al (Visscher)                 WO-92/07535                 May 14, 1992                       
              Japanese Patent Application               5-115506                    May 14, 1993                       
                     The following rejections stand under 35 U.S.C. § 103:                                             
              (1) Claims 1-6 and 10 on the basis of the Japanese reference and DesMarais.                              
              (2) Claim 11 on the basis of the Japanese reference, DesMarais and Visscher.                             
              (3) Claims 13, 14 and 16-18 on the basis of DesMarais and Visscher.                                      
                     Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the                 
              appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer (Paper                  
              No. 36) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Brief             
              (Paper No. 35) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.                                               













Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007