Ex parte FEIST - Page 2




          Appeal No. 1997-3342                                                        
          Application No. 08/389,086                                                  


          back waist regions.  As explained at page 51 of the                         
          specification                                                               
               [t]he Z-folded barrier cuff design allows both                         
               sufficient lateral spacing of the barrier cuffs for                    
               the genitals in the front and for BM containment in                    
               the back as well as sufficient cuff height in the                      
               crotch area for good fit into the leg crease and                       
               good containment of body exudates.                                     
               Claims 1 and 5, the only independent claims, are                       
          illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and are                        
          reproduced in an “Appendix” attached to the brief.                          
               The prior art references of record relied upon by the                  
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                              
          Robertson                     5,026,364                     Jun.            
          25, 1991                                                                    
          Vandemoortele et al.   WO 93/09739                     May  27,             
          1993                                                                        
          (Vandemoortele)          (published International                           
          application)                                                                
               The following rejections are before us for review:                     
               (I) claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                     
          102(b) as being anticipated by Vandemoortele;1                              



               We note the statement on page 3 of the answer that claims 1 and 21                                                                     
          stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103(a) is a typographical error, as evident
          from the final rejection (paper no. 16).                                    
                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007