Appeal No. 2002-0913
Application No. 09/107,643
not been established. In particular, there is an unexplained gap
of over six months between the March 2, 1987 date when appellant
reviewed and signed the application papers (Tracy I, paragraph 7)
and the application was filed in the PTO (Tracy I, paragraph 8).7
Appellant must account for the entire period during which
diligence is required. Gould v. Schawlow, 363 F.2d 908, 919,
150 USPQ 634, 643 (CCPA 1966). This has not been done.
Accordingly, appellant has not established that the claimed
invention was completed prior to the effective filing date of
Foreman, and Foreman has not been removed as a reference against
the appealed claims.
The merits of the § 102 rejection based on Foreman.
Turning to the merits of the anticipation rejection of 7, 8,
11-13, 15, 16, 18, 21, 23-26, 28, 31, 33-36 and 38 based on
Foreman, Foreman discloses a disposable diaper comprising an
absorbent core 44, a liquid impervious backsheet 42 made of
7
7It should not be assumed that we consider Tracy I to
establish due diligent from just prior to the effective filing
date of Foreman up to March 2, 1987.
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007