Appeal No. 1999-2777
Application No. 08/985,835
the spongy covering is sized and shaped as explained on pages
4 and 6 of appellant's specification and as generally seen in
Figure 3 of the drawings, in the instance of a given female
patient, to cover and conform to an area immediately
surrounding the urethra, including the clitoris, part of the
vulva, the labia and possibly a short distance into the front
of the vagina (e.g., of about 2 to 3 centimeters) and to not
completely cover the vaginal opening. For a male patient, an
artisan would understand that the spongy covering would be
sized and shaped as seen in Figure 4 of
appellant's drawings, i.e., with the spongy covering (48)
sized and shaped to encompass the glans of the penis.
Given the foregoing and appellant's arguments on pages 7
and 8 of the brief, we will not sustain the examiner's
rejection of appellant's claims 9 through 11 and 13 through 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
We next look to the examiner's prior art rejections of
the appealed claims, turning first to the rejection of claims
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007