Appeal No. 97-2555Application No. 08/215,062 Page 2
BACKGROUND
The appellants' invention relates to a vaginal discharge
collection device. An understanding of the invention can be
derived from a reading of exemplary claims 1, 4 and 86 (the
independent claims on appeal), which appear in the appendix to
the appellants' brief.
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:
Davis et al. (Davis) 3,983,874 Oct. 5, 1976
Claims 1, 4 to 16 and 19 to 23 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which the appellants regard as the invention.
Claims 1, 4, 9, 10, 13, 14, 19, 23, 82, 86, 87, 91 and 97
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a, b and e) as being
anticipated by Davis.
Claims 5 to 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 20 to 22, 92 and 93 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Davis.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007