BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a resealable package for carrying a supply of
interlabial pads ina hygienic condition. Claims 1 and 8 are representative of the subject
matteron appeal, and a copy of these claims can be found in the appendix to the
appellants’ brief.
The examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Burrow et al. (Burrow) 6,115,997 Sep. 12, 2000
Jones 6,059,100 May 09, 2000
May US 2002/0064322 May 30, 2002* A1
*filed Nov. 29, 2000
McManus et al. (McManus) 6,601,706 Aug. 05, 2003
K olterjohn et al. (Kolterjohn) 6,681,934 Jan. 27, 2004
Ling et al. (Ling) 6,705,465 Mar. 16, 2004
The following rejections are before us for review.
1. Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jones in
view of Burrow and May.
2. Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply
with the written description requirement.
3. Claim s 1-8 stand rejected under the judicially-created doctrine of obviousness-type
double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of McManus in view of
May.
4. Claim s 1-8 stand rejected under the judicially-created doctrine of obviousness-type
double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of Kolterjohn in view of
May.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007