Ex Parte Molas et al - Page 6


                Appeal No.  2007-0752                                                    Page 6                 
                Application No.  09/957,109                                                                     
                       16-17), (ii) that may be adjusted in size, depending on panty size,                      
                       [and] (iii) by folding the pantiliner along at least one embossed fold                   
                       line so as to allow periphery side areas of the pantiliner to be                         
                       positioned under a panty prior to, and while said pantiliner is in use,                  
                       and[ ] (iv) such folded pantiliner when in use having a first                            
                       longitudinal end being wider than the second longitudinal end.                           
                Brief, page 4.  Of these four features, appellants assert that Unger does not                   
                teach features (i) – (iii).  Brief, page 7.  In this regard, appellants assert that             
                Unger’s “pantiliner is neither capable of being configured as recited in applicants’            
                invention, nor would it be able to function as the Unger pantiliner is intended to              
                function if the Unger pantiliner were modified to try and obtain the combination of             
                features recited as applicants’ invention.”  In support of this assertion, appellants           
                direct attention to Unger, page 2, last paragraph, page 7, first full paragraph,                
                figure 8, page 9 first full paragraph, and page 10, first full paragraph.  Brief,               
                page 7.  According to appellants, the cited sections of Unger demonstrate that                  
                Unger’s “disclosure is directed to a pantiliner that will assume a ‘W’ shaped                   
                cross-sectional configuration when the napkin is placed in use in a wearer’s                    
                panty.”  Brief, page 8.  According to appellants (id., emphasis removed), Unger                 
                “does not enable a pantiliner having periphery side areas to be position[ed] under              
                a panty prior to, and while said pantiliner[ is] in use, and thus being adjustable in           
                size depending on panty size.”                                                                  
                       In response, the examiner asserts that appellants’ “claim language does                  
                not require the entirety of the napkin outside the embossed fold lines, i.e. the                
                entirety of the periphery side areas, be positioned under the panty prior to and                
                while in use.”  Answer, page 8.  In the examiner’s opinion, “portions of [Unger’s]              
                elements 50 are allowed, explicitly or inherently, to be positioned as claimed                  





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

Last modified: September 9, 2013