Appeal No. 2001-0661 6
Application No. 08/480,232
(column 6, line 18). Finally, a cover 12 is provided that encloses all of the layers and “is
made from a flexible conductive plastic material” (column 6, lines 25-27). As to the
Figures 14-16 “petal” embodiments relied upon by the examiner, based on the description
thereof as set forth at column 10, lines 27-64, the individual sections or “petals” of these
embodiments would appear to be of the same basic layered construction as the earlier
described applicators with the exception that in the Figure 14 and Figure 15 embodiments
the reservoir comprises a plurality of discrete relatively small cells rather than a single
large cell. According to Sibalis, the plural cell construction “lends itself to greater flexibility
and ability of the applicator to conform to the contours of various parts of the body”
(column 10, lines 27-31).
When the claim term “rigid region” is properly interpreted in light of appellant’s
underlying specification, it is at best unclear whether the individual sections or “petals” of
the Figures 14-16 embodiments of Sibalis possess the degree of flexural rigidity required
by that claim term.1 It follows from such uncertainty as to the rigidity of the sections or
“petals” that the standing anticipation rejection of claim 1 cannot be sustained. Claims 7-
13, 17-20 and 30 depend from claim 1, hence the anticipation rejection thereof based on
Sibalis likewise cannot be sustained.
1Based on the aims and objectives of Sibalis, it appears to us more likely that the
individual sections or “petals” of the Figures 14-16 embodiments do not possess the
degree of flexural rigidity required by the claim term “rigid region.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007