Appeal No. 1998-1329
Application 08/642,595
other applied references. After careful review of the applied
prior art in light of the arguments of record, we are in
agreement with Appellants’
position as stated in the Briefs. We note that the relevant
portion of independent claim 21 recites:2
said first layer and said second layer being
disposed on top of each other with said first
layer being connected to said second layer
over the entire dimensions of said second
layer to form an uneven tension between said
first and second layers for maintaining a
predetermined shape of said sanitary cover.
In the “Response to argument” portion of the Answer (page 7),
the Examiner, apparently recognizing the absence of any
explicit disclosure of such “uneven tension” feature in Lo,
attempts to address Appellants’ argument by suggesting the
inherent creation of such “uneven tension” between the cover
layers in Lo during the molding process. We agree with
Appellants, however, that such an assertion is based on
unfounded speculation. There is no indication in Lo that any
molding process is utilized, nor any evidence supplied by the
2 A similar recitation appears in the concluding paragraph
of independent claim 1.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007