Appeal No. 2006-1493
Application No. 10/037,276
1 The Examiner provides reasoning in support of the rejections in the
2 Answer (mailed October 24, 2005). Appellants present opposing arguments
3 in the Brief (filed July 12, 2004) and Reply Brief (filed November 4, 2004).
4
5 OPINION
6 Both of the Examiner’s rejections are grounded in part on the
7 Examiner’s determination that McFall’s absorbent portion 22 has a
8 maximum longitudinal length extending from a first transverse end to a
9 second transverse end and has a body-facing surface having a minimum
10 longitudinal length that lies generally along said principal longitudinal axis
11 from said first transverse end area to said second transverse end area and is
12 less than said maximum longitudinal length, as required in all of
13 Appellants’ independent claims 1, 9, 18, and 27. The dispositive issue in
14 this appeal is whether the Examiner erred in making that determination.
15 The Examiner’s position in making that determination is explained on
16 pages 8 and 9 of the Answer, with reference to the annotated Fig. 1 on page
17 9 of the Answer. In essence, the Examiner defines a “minimum longitudinal
18 length” along the principal longitudinal axis2 extending between two
19 arbitrary points on the absorbent portion 22 that are in the area of, but not at,
the rejection. See In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n. 3, 166 USPQ 406, 407
n. 3 (CCPA 1970).
2 We understand the principal longitudinal axis to be the central axis
extending in the longitudinal direction along the absorbent article (see
Specification 5).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013