Appeal No. 1997-1135
Application 08/375,196
because “the true metes and bounds of the claimed limitation
cannot be determined” (answer, page 6). As an example, the
examiner argues that “less than 2” includes integers above and
below 2. See id. The examiner has merely stated a
conclusion, and has not provided the required explanation as
to why the claim language, as it would have been interpreted
by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of appellant’s
specification and the prior art, fails to set out and
circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity. Consequently, we reverse the
examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Shiba discloses “an absorbent article comprising, as the
surface material, a non-woven fabric containing 40 wt. % or
more of a conjugate fiber made of a first polyester and a
second polyester having a melting temperature of 50E C. or
more below that of said first polyester and a height of an
endothermic peak of 5% or more of the first polyester” (col.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007