Appeal No. 2000-0122
Application No. 08/309,925
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Final
Rejection and the Answer, we determine that the examiner has
established a prima facie case of anticipation for the subject
matter of claim 43 which has not been adequately rebutted by
appellants’ arguments. Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of claim 43, and claims 44, 46,
47, 49, 54, 55 and 57 which stand or fall with claim 43, over
Rosenthal.
As discussed above, we decided each of the grounds of rejection
under section 103 over Rosenthal in view of Caldwell and Rosenthal
in view of Cody on the basis of claim 43 alone, and thus we affirm
both of these rejections over Rosenthal alone since anticipation is
the ultimate or epitome of obviousness. See In re Fracalossi, 681
F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982). A discussion of
Caldwell and Cody is therefore unnecessary to our decision.
With regard to the examiner’s rejection of claims 50 and 58
under section 103 over Rosenthal in view of Khalil, we cannot
sustain the examiner’s rejection. Even assuming arguendo that
Khalil teaches a fibrous material that has its fibers positioned
normal to its surface in order to allow capillary action of the
fibers to assist in transporting fluid (Final Rejection, Paper No.
11, page 6), the examiner has failed to advance any cogent
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007