Appeal No. 2004-0694
Application 09/839,741
addition, the examiner has determined that Fisher ‘230 discloses
an enclosed pouch (34 and 53) which maintains the flaps in a
topsheet facing relationship, is releasably attached to the
flaps, and has a wipe article (80) disposed therein. In that
regard, the examiner analogizes the wrapper (34) of Fisher ‘230
to appellants’ release strip (46, 46’) and the flap/pouch (53) of
the Fisher patent, attached to the wrapper (34), to appellants’
pouch (70), urging that the Fisher ‘230 combination (34, 53)
maintain the flaps in the topsheet facing relationship, has
a wipe disposed therein and may be attached and separated
from the flaps without destruction of or undue distortion of
either the flaps or the combination 34, 53, i.e. “releasably
affixed”. (answer, page 5)
Appellants’ argument for patentability of the claims on
appeal is found on page 3 of the brief and the essence of that
argument can be distilled down to the following statements:
[w]hile Fisher, et al. does use a similar pouch, this pouch
is not releasable affixed to the flaps of the absorbent
article as claimed. Instead the pouch of Fisher is disposed
on one of the faces of the wrapper.
As noted in MPEP § 1208, when preparing an Examiner’s
answer, for each rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the examiner
“shall explain why the rejected claims are anticipated or not
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007