Appeal No. 1997-3342
Application No. 08/389,086
that evening overnight. It performed well by not
leaking. Fit was also good.
This showing, in our view, is sufficient to establish
reduction to practice prior to May 27, 1993.
Second, the examiner considered that the Feist affidavit
did not establish a reduction to practice of the absorbent
article set forth in the claims since the limitations set
forth in the last four lines of claim 1 and the waist cap
recited in claims 5 through 9 are not shown in Exhibit A.
Our review of the affidavit reveals that Exhibit A
clearly discloses a diaper having a Z folded barrier cuff
glued in place at the longitudinal ends of the diaper. The
end view of the diaper found on notebook page 42 shows glue
located between the three portions or legs of the Z folded
cuff. In our view, this is as much of the invention as is
shown by Figures 8 and 9 of Vandemoortele. Therefore, if the
examiner is correct and claim 1
reads on the diaper shown in Figures 8 and 9 of Vandemoortele,
it must also read on the diaper shown on page 42 of Exhibit A.
It logically follows that the Feist affidavit establishes a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007