Appeal No. 97-1027
Application 08/218,954
faster than in either the first or third layers to enable a user
to determine by observation if the napkin is approaching its
maximum fluid capacity. A copy of claim 32, which is exemplary of
the claimed subject matter, is appended to this decision.
The following references are relied upon by the examiner as
evidence of anticipation and obviousness in support of his
rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103:
Ness 4,880,419 Nov. 14, 1989
Osborn, III 4,950,264 Aug. 21, 1990
Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Ness, claims 32, 33, 38 and 42 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Osborn and
claims 34 through 37, 39 and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Osborn. Reference is made to the
final office action (paper No. 13) for details of these
rejections.
We have carefully considered the issues raised in this
appeal together with the examiner’s remarks and appellants’
arguments. As a result, we conclude that the rejections of
appealed claims 30, 32 through 39, 41 and 42 cannot be sustained.
Considering first the § 102(b) rejection of claims 32, 33,
38 and 42, it is well establish patent law that for a reference
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007