Appeal No. 2001-2366 Page 2
Application No. 08/926,533
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a method of improving skin condition of a
wearer in an area covered by a treated absorbent article. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which appears in the
appendix to the Brief.
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims is:
Roe 5,607,760 Mar. 4, 1997
Claims 1, 7-13, 17 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Roe.1
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 32) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and
to the Brief (Paper No. 31) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 33) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
1The rejection of claims 1, 7-13, 17 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, set forth in
the final rejection (Paper No. 21) was not repeated in the Answer.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007