Appeal No. 2004-0645
Application 09/194,968
Claims 1 through 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Bergman.1
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full commentary
concerning the above-noted rejections and the conflicting
viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants regarding
those rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer
(Paper No. 28, mailed June 18, 2003) for the reasoning in support
of the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 27, filed
May 7, 2003) and reply brief (Paper No. 29, filed August 13,
2003) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
1 In formulating this anticipation rejection, the examiner
has also relied upon the disclosures of Buell ‘092 and Kopp to
modify the absorbent garment seen in Figure 9 of Bergman, Buell
‘092 being incorporated by reference into Bergman (col. 12, lines
49-51) and Kopp being incorporated by reference into Buell ‘092
(col. 25, lines 42-48).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007