Appeal No. 2007-0752 Page 8
Application No. 09/957,109
claimed invention. As appellants point out (Reply Brief, page 1), their claims
require that “‘the pantiliner may be adjusted in size depending on panty size, by
folding said pantiliner along said at least one embossed fold line so as to allow
said periphery side areas to be positioned under the panty prior to, and while the
pantiliner is in use’.”
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, every limitation of a claim must identically appear
in a single prior art reference for it to anticipate the claim.” Gechter v. Davidson,
116 F.3d 1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For the reasons
set forth above, it is our opinion that Unger fails to teach every limitation of
appellants’ claimed invention. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 1,
5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Unger.
Obviousness:
Unger
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in
the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Unger. The
examiner finds that claim 2 is written in product-by-process format and that the
pantiliner of claim 2 is unpatentable over Unger for the same reasons set forth in
the rejection of claim 1.
We disagree with the examiner’s conclusion for the same reasons as set
forth in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claim 2
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being obvious over Unger.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013