Appeal No. 2001-2422
Application No. 08/817,573
Since the examiner has not demonstrated that all the
limitations of appellants' independent claim 1 are found in
Jessup '158, either expressly or under principles of
inherency, it follows that the examiner has not established a
prima facie case of anticipation, and that the examiner's
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) relying on
Jessup '158 will not be sustained. It follows that the
examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2, 5, 8 and 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) relying on Jessup '158 will also not be
sustained.
As for the examiner's rejection of dependent claims 3 and
7 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)/103 based on Jessup '158,
for the reasons set forth above, these rejections will not be
sustained. Regarding the examiner's rejection of dependent
claim 4 over Jessup '158 in view of Pieniak, and the rejection
of claim 6 based on Jessup '158 in view of Unicharm '147 and
Unicharm '148, we have reviewed the applied secondary
references, but find nothing therein which would provide for
that which we have found above to be lacking in Jessup '158.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007