Appeal No. 2006-0041 3
Application No. 10/037,377
The Examiner rejects the claims under both 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 and 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
With regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner relies on the
following prior art references to show unpatentability:
Srinvasan et al. (Srinvasan) US 3,973,567 August 10, 1976
Lenaghan US 4,405,326 September 20, 1983
Lassen et al. (Lassen) US 4,631,062 December 23, 1986
Houghton et al. (Houghton) US 5,706,950 January 13, 1998
Richardson US 6,623,466 September 23, 2003
(eff. filed Oct. 23, 1997)
Molnlycke WO 88/06008 August 25, 1988
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
A. Claims 1, and 13-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which applicant regards as the invention;
B. Claims 1, 5, 11, 13, 15, 19 and 25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Molnlycke and Lassen;
C. Claims 8-10 and 22-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Molnlycke and Lassen, and in further combination with Lenaghan and
Srinvasan; and
D. Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Molnlycke and Lassen, and in combination with Houghton and Richardson.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007