Appeal No. 1999-0369
Application No. 08/575,926
U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of independent claim 1, or claims 5,
6, 9-12, 14, 15 and 49 that depend therefrom, as being
anticipated by Foreman.
Turning to the rejection of independent claim 34 as being
anticipated by Foreman, claim 34 differs somewhat from
independent claims 1 and 19 in how it sets forth the
relationship between the spacer and the reservoir.
Specifically, paragraph (d) of claim 34 calls for a spacer
having a thickness, said spacer being disposed at at least one
of the rear portion and rear waist flap, and the rear waist
flap “being spaced from said rear portion by the thickness of
said spacer.” While the spacing means 76 of Foreman has at
least a nominal thickness, the rear waist flap (barrier cuff
262) is not spaced from the rear portion (surface 40) “by the
thickness of the spacer” as required by claim 34. Instead,
and as noted above, the barrier cuff 262 of Foreman is spaced
from the surface 40 by the gathering action of elastic members
77 of the spacing means. Hence, the absorbent article of
Foreman does not correspond to the subject matter of claim 34.
We therefore also shall not sustain the standing 35
U.S.C.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007