Appeal No. 2002-0741
Application No. 08/935,348
cleanly with minimum discomfort when desired) in the absence of
such allegedly critical features. In support of this rationale,
the examiner cites In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 1233, 188 USPQ
356, 358 (CCPA 1976) for the proposition that a claim that fails
to recite a feature which is taught as critical in the
specification should be rejected under the enablement requirement
of that paragraph of the statute.
As noted above, appellants’ invention is directed to a
catamenial device having a supportive adhesive residing on the
body-side surface of the device. Our review of appellants’
disclosure reveals that the specification expressly states at
page 3, lines 9-18, that very few adhesive compositions are
completely satisfactory for application to human skin and that
the requirements for such adhesives are stringent. Appellants’
specification also expressly states at page 3, line 19, through
page 4, line 7, that adhesives of the type used in appellants’
invention that are applied to certain sensitive areas of the
human body require further special characteristics because, among
other things, hair covered regions are especially difficult to
adhere to without causing pain upon removal of the adhered
article. Throughout the specification, various “aspects” of the
invention, including the rheological, chemical, and physical
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007