Appeal No. 1999-0369
Application No. 08/575,926
§ 102(b) rejection of independent claim 34, or claims 35, 36,
42, 44, 47 and 51 that depend therefrom, as being anticipated
by Foreman.
Claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 21, 22, 24, 26, 37, 38, 40, 41, 45 and
48-51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Foreman. The examiner does not propose, and
it is not apparent to us, how the absorbent article of Foreman
could be modified to provide the relationship between the
spacer and the reservoir called for in independent claims 1,
19 and 34. Hence, even if we were to agree with the examiner
that it would have been obvious to provide the absorbent
article of Foreman with the features set forth in dependent
claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 21, 22, 24, 26, 37, 38, 40, 41, 45 and 48-
51, the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Foreman is not sustainable.
The rejection based on Roe
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007