Appeal No. 2004-0327
Application No. 09/689,194
backsheet are separate entities, and the meaning of the term
“rear surface of the backing layer” in claim 1.
Thus, the examiner’s determination that Hasse is
anticipatory with respect to the subject matter recited in claim
1 is not well taken. Accordingly, we shall not sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) rejection of claim 1, and dependent
claims 2 and 3, as being anticipated by Hasse.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 4 as being
unpatentable over Hasse in view of Fischel-Ghodsian
As Fischel-Ghodsian does not overcome the above noted
deficiencies of Hasse relative to the subject matter recited in
parent claim 1, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of dependent claim 4 as being unpatentable
over Hasse in view of Fischel-Ghodsian.
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 5, 7 and 8 as
being unpatentable over Hasse in view of Bernardin
The examiner concedes that Hasse does not meet the
limitations in independent claims 5 and 7 relating to the sealed
wrapper and to the placement of the fragrance on the inner
surface of the wrapper or, in the case of claim 5, on the non-
adhesive side of the bandage. To cure these shortcomings, the
examiner turns to Bernardin.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007