Appeal No. 2002-0741
Application No. 08/935,348
Appellants’ argument on pages 14-15 of the main brief and
page 3 of the reply brief implies that the rheological property
taught as critical in the specification and not recited in claims
1-12 is optional. This line of reasoning is no more persuasive
here than it was in Mayhew. In short, appellants’ specification
does not support the argument that the rheological property
disclosed at page 24, lines 16-24, is optional. In view of the
above, the rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, is sustained.
We reach an opposite conclusion with respect to claims 13-
20. Unlike claims 1-12, claims 13-20 include the essential
rheological property stated to be essential to the invention.
Accordingly, our rationale for sustaining the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-12 does not apply to these claims. As to
the examiner’s position that other disclosed features of the
invention, such as the weight per unit area of adhesive applied
to the body-facing surface of the article, are not recited in
claims 13-20, we do not consider such disclosed but unclaimed
features to be essential to the invention. Hence, the standing
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection of these claims will
not be sustained.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007