Appeal No. 95-5027
Application 08/993,198
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 because there is no antecedent
basis in claim 14 for “the plane” of the topsheet. The fact
is that there is no antecedent basis for this term. However,
while this is a technical violation, it is our view that it
does not cause the claim to be indefinite, considering the
explanation of the invention provided in the specification and
the skill that should be accorded to the artisan. It is clear
from Figure 2 of the drawings that the topsheet (24) has a
planar configuration, and that the barrier leg cuffs (32) are
upstanding therefrom. Thus, it is our view that the meaning
of the disputed term is clear, and we will not sustain this
rejection.
Claims 5, 6, 9 and 12 stand rejected under the fourth
paragraph of Section 112. The sole limitation added to claim
1 by claim 5 is that the transverse partition is
“substantially inelastic.” It is the examiner’s position that
this does not further restrict the structure of claim 1, in
which the transverse partition already has been described as
being “nonresilient.” For the reasons discussed above under
the second paragraph rejections, we find these two recitations
to be but different ways of stating the same requirement. We
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007