Appeal No. 2001-2629 Page 10
Application No. 08/931,080
However, Gagnon does not cure the problem with the basic combination of references,
and this rejection is not sustained.
Claim 3, which depends from claim 1, stands rejected as being unpatentable
over the references applied against claim 1, taken further with Stevens and Enloe.
Claim 3 adds protective wings bonded to the crotch portion of the disposable liner, and
the additional references are cited for teaching such a feature. Be that as it may,
neither Stevens nor Enloe alleviate the deficiency pointed out above in the basic
combination of Schmitz, Cooper, Reindl and Pigneul, and therefore the rejection of
claim 3 will not be sustained.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 12, 16 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
is sustained.
None of the other rejections are sustained.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
NEAL E. ABRAMS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007