Appeal No. 95-4526
Application 08/200,251
of claims 8 and 9 for the reasons stated above, our affirmance
once again being designated a new ground of rejection pursuant
to 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
Claims 11-16, 18, 39, 49 and 57 stand rejected as being
unpatentable over Sukiennik in view of Nosaki and further in
view of Nishino (rejection (c)), and claims 30, 45 and 54
stand rejected as being unpatentable over Sukiennik in view of
Nosaki and further in view of Sneyd (rejection (d)). Each of
these claims calls for an absorbent article comprising, inter
alia, a bicomponent cover including a first material having
openings formed therethrough and a nonapertured second
material, with the second material being different from the
first material. We have carefully reviewed the Nishino and
Sneyd references additionally applied by the examiner against
these claims but find nothing therein which makes up for the
deficiencies of the basic combination of Sukiennik and Nosaki
noted above with respect to this claim limitation.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing § 103
rejection of claims 11-16, 18, 39, 49 and 57 based on
Sukiennik, Nosaki and Nishino (rejection (c)), or the standing
-17-
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007