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has been withdrawn by the examiner in light of appellant’s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