Appeal No. 96-1366
Application 08/105,617
that each body includes additional structure. For example,
paragraph (b) of claim 3 recites that each body also has a
plurality of fastener means and paragraph (c) recites that the
bottom edges of each body are bonded together along a convexly
curved welding line. These recitations of additional
structure are inconsistent with the recitation “consisting of”
in paragraph (a), and thus render indefinite the scope of
claim 3. We will therefore, sustain the examiner’s rejection
of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
We additionally note that, because of the use of
“consisting of” in paragraph (a), it is not clear from the
language of claim 3 whether the fastener means and the welding
line are included in the combination.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claim 3
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Karami in
view of Repke and Glassman. It is the examiner’s position
that Karami teaches all the claimed structure except for (1)
“each side edge of said front body... being detachably joined
in overlapping relationship to a side edge of said rear
body... by a plurality of fastener means” and (2) a “liquid-
absorbent panel” as set forth in subsection (d) of claim 3.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007