Appeal No. 1999-0369
Application No. 08/575,926
is this unillustrated embodiment that the examiner relies upon
in rejecting the claims as being anticipated by Foreman.
With respect to the anticipation rejection of claim 19
based on Foreman, the last paragraph of claim 19 requires that
the spacer maintain the volume of the reservoir by effectively
occupying space in the rear reservoir. On the other hand, the
spacing means 76, 77 of Foreman, when incorporated into the
tunnel of the second barrier cuff 262, maintains the spacing
of the channel 96 by virtue of the “elastic gathering action
of spacing elastic member 77" (column 5, lines 2-3). Even if
it can be successfully argued that an artisan would consider
Foreman’s elastic member 77 as occupying space “in” the
channel (reservoir) as called for in paragraph (d) of claim
18, a proposition we consider to be unlikely, Foreman’s 3
elastic member 77 does not by that action function to space
the barrier cuff 262 from liquid-receiving surface 40 to
thereby maintain a void volume in the channel 96 sufficient
3Foreman states at column 5, lines 3-6, that channel 96 is
formed, in part, by first proximal edge 64, first distal edge
66 and the inboard surface 68 of the first barrier cuff 62.
Based on this description of what constitutes Foreman’s
channel, it is doubtful that an artisan would consider
Foreman’s spacing means 76 as being located “in” the channel.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007