Appeal No. 96-1366
Application 08/105,617
(iii) the closed end of said U-shaped configuration
being mounted so as to float at a spaced distance of at least
10 mm away from said convexly curved welding line (8) of said
convexly curved crotch zone.
THE REFERENCES
The following references were relied on by the
examiner:
Glassman 4,022,210 May 10, 1977
Repke et al. (Repke) 4,205,679 Jun. 3, 1980
Karami et al. (Karami) 4,427,408 Jan. 24, 1984
THE REJECTION
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
in which the applicants regard as the invention.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Karami in view of Repke and Glassman.2
2 The examiner indicates in the answer that the obvious type double
patenting rejection is not before us because the copending
application has been abandoned (answer at page 2).
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007