Appeal No. 2001-2422
Application No. 08/817,573
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Jessup '158 in view of Unicharm '147 and
Unicharm '148.2
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by
the examiner and appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we refer to the first Office action (Paper No. 5,
mailed October 21, 1997), the final rejection (Paper No. 22,
mailed January 27, 2000) and the examiner's answer (Paper No.
28, mailed December 19, 2000) for a complete exposition of the
examiner's position and to appellants' brief (Paper No. 27,
filed September 26, 2000) and reply brief (Paper No. 29, filed
February 20, 2001) for the arguments thereagainst.
2While the examiner has urged (answer, page 3) that
appellants are "not appealing" certain of the rejections
listed in their brief, we note that the Notice of Appeal
(Paper No. 25) belies any such conclusion. Although
appellants' have indicated on page 6 of their brief that
claims 1 through 9 have been grouped together and will thus
stand or fall together, this does not mean that any of the
rejections set forth in the final rejection are not being
appealed. As for the Unicharm references, our understanding
of the disclosures of these references is based on a
translation of each prepared for the USPTO in November 1997
and of record in the application file.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007