Appeal No. 2004-0694
Application 09/839,741
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's full
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejection and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants
regarding that rejection, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 11, mailed April 9, 2003) for the reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 10,
filed March 11, 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 reference, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determination which follows.
In rejecting the claims before us on appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Fisher ‘230 the examiner has
found that this patent discloses an absorbent article like that
defined in appellants’ claims on appeal having flaps (28) folded
over the topsheet (22) in a topsheet facing relationship (see,
for example, Figs. 1-3, 10-12, and 13A of Fisher ‘230). In
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007