Appeal No. 2006-0885
Application No. 10/168,883
identified by the Examiner. Further, Appellants have not asserted that
the properties not disclosed by Levy were due to the wrapping of the
absorbent core with tissue material. As such, the Appellants have not
adequately rebutted the Examiner’s rejection.
We will now address the remaining claims.
Appellants’ arguments regarding the properties of claims 8, 14, 15
and 16 have been considered. These claims all further define the
garment of claim 1. The claims specify the properties: web modulus,
bending force, whiteness and leakage under pressure. According to the
Examiner, Answer page 3, these properties are all related to the
materials that form the claimed article disclosed by Levy. As stated
above, Appellants have not proven that the prior art product does not
necessarily or inherently possess characteristics attributed to the claimed
product. Appellants have not asserted that the properties specified by
the claims were not related to the properties of Levy identified by the
Examiner. As such, these claims are not patentable over the stated
rejection for the reasons presented above.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007