Appeal No. 1998-2818
Application 08/550,521
alternative, as being unpatentable over Uni-Charm in view of
Buell.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Uni-Charm or Kao in view of Daio ‘051, Daio
‘052 and Robertson, or, in the alternative, as being
unpatentable over Uni-Charm or Kao in view of Daio ‘051, Daio
‘052 and Robertson, and further in view of Buell.
Preliminary Matters
The “Grounds of Rejection” section of the answer (pages 5
and 6) refers us back to Paper No. 17 (the final rejection in
the present application) and “a previous Office Action, Paper
No. 2” (the initial office action in the parent application)
for statements of the rejections. In addition, the “Response
to Argument” section of the answer (pages 6-9) for the most
part consists of merely cross referencing various pages and
lines of papers filed by appellant (Paper Nos. 13 and 16) to
various pages and lines of previous office actions (Paper Nos.
14 and 17). These previous office actions in turn refer to
other office actions.
MPEP § 1208, in pertinent part, reads as follows:
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007