Appeal No. 1999-0710
Application No. 08/716,875
The rejections are explained in the examiner’s answer
(Paper No. 17).
The opposing viewpoints of appellants are set forth in
the main and reply briefs (Paper Nos. 16 and 21).
The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection
The examiner’s rationale starts with the premise that in
order for a claim to pass muster under the second paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112, “one of ordinary skill in the art must be
able to determine with absolute certainty whether every
particular article necessarily falls within the scope of that
claim or outside the scope of that claim” (answer, pages 3-4;
underlining in original). The examiner notes that the claims
in question define the invention in terms of the “mean free
path” and “bovine blood absorbency rate” of the transfer
layer. According to the examiner,1
[s]ince a myriad of testing rooms conditions,
material(s) age, testing location, and the like
1Actually, the term “mean free path” is found in the base
claims from which claims 7, 8, 18 and 19 depend.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007