Ex parte BOULANGER - Page 3




                 Appeal No. 1999-0441                                                                                                                   
                 Application No. 08/676,454                                                                                                             

                          The following rejections are before us for review:2                                                                           
                          (a) claims 1, 2, 6, 8-11, 13 and 17, rejected under 35                                                                        
                 U.S.C.  102(b) as being anticipated by Pigneul;                                                                                       


                          (b) claims 5 and 14-16, rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as                                                                     
                 being unpatentable over Pigneul in view of Lavash; and                                                                                 
                          (c) claim 18, rejected under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being                                                                         
                 unpatentable over Pigneul.                                                                                                             


                                                                     Opinion                                                                            
                          In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given                                                                        
                 careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims,                                                                         
                 to the applied prior art references, and to the respective                                                                             
                 positions articulated by appellant and the examiner.  As a                                                                             
                 consequence of our review, we cannot sustain the examiner’s                                                                            
                 rejections.                                                                                                                            
                          An objective of appellant’s invention is to provide an                                                                        
                 absorbent product that protects against leakage along the                                                                              

                          2A rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 17 under 35                                                                       
                 U.S.C.  112, second paragraph, made in the Final Rejection                                                                            
                 has been withdrawn by the examiner in light of appellant’s                                                                             
                 amendment filed subsequent to the Final Rejection.  See the                                                                            
                 above noted Advisory Action.                                                                                                           
                                                                           3                                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007