Appeal No. 2005-1988
Application No. 09/822,651
§ 1.192(c)(7)(2003). Also see Ex parte Schier, 21 USPQ2d 1016,
1018 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1991).
OPINION
I. The rejection of claims 21-31, 33-35, 37, 39, 40, 42-48, 50-
53 and 55 as being anticipated by Thomas
Beginning on page 5 of the brief, appellants argue the
subject matter of claims 21, 40 and 48. Appellants argue that
these claims recite “a plurality of discrete polymeric regions
fused to a first major side of the web”. Appellants also state
that each of these claims further requires that “a plurality of
stems extends from each discrete polymeric region of the
plurality of polymeric regions”.
Appellants argue that Thomas differs from these claims in
that the identified portions of Thomas (of a loop 22 attached to
a substrate 24 by a base 26) show that each “polymeric region”
provides only a single loop. Brief, page 5. Appellants also
argue that Thomas does not disclose any “stems” in the loop
structure 22. Brief, page 6.
The examiner disagrees with the above position. The
examiner states that “a row of adjacent loop components” shown in
Thomas does form the claimed “discrete polymeric regions”.
Answer, page 10. The examiner also states that loop shanks 28
can be interpreted as “stems”. Answer, pages 10.
(status of claims)).
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007