Appeal No. 2006-0041 6
Application No. 10/037,377
Also, we determine that the limitation, “greater than 40 percent” can be
interpreted consistently with “portion” in the context of the claim. Subsequent language
in a claim can further limit an earlier presented limitation. It is entirely possible for a
retainer flap to extend greater than about 40 percent of the surface and also cover a
portion of the baffle. One of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of
range of coverage afforded by these two limitations.
Therefore, we conclude that the examiner has failed to establish indefiniteness
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2.
B. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The examiner maintained three grounds of rejection, as discussed below:
1. Rejection of claims 1, 5, 11, 13, 15, 19 and 25 over
Molnlycke in combination with Lassen.
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5, 11, 13, 15, 19 and 25 over
Molnlycke in combination with Lassen. Because Appellant does not
argue any claim apart from the others, we select a single claim,
claim 15, to represent the issues on appeal.
The Examiner rejected the claims because, “to combine a
sanitary napkin, such as that taught by [Lassen], which is
configured for disposition primarily within the vestibule of a
female wearer as well as packaged in a separate receptacle[,
with] the sheet 4 of [Molnlycke would have been] obvious to one
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007