Appeal No. 2006-1666
Application No. 10/211,683
paragraph), the examiner has failed to establish that any
absorbent articles used in contact with a mammalian body would
have filaments of the claimed diameter. Although the rejected
claims are not limited to insulation material, the examiner’s
rejection is based on a modification of Sneyd that is lacking in
evidentiary support.
We now turn to the § 103 rejection of claims 17 and 18 over
Porter in view of Li. A principal argument of appellants is
that the foam board of Porter “neither has a plurality of layers
of net materials disposed in overlying laminated relation to
each other nor a layer having a plurality of criss-crossing
foamed plastic filaments adhered to each other and defining a
net” (page 11 of principal brief, first paragraph). We agree
with the examiner, however, that appellants improperly interpret
their claim language as requiring contact between the claimed
“plurality of layers of net material disposed in overlying
laminated relation to each other” (claim 17, lines 2-3). We
agree with the examiner’s reasoning that “other layers can be
present between the net material layers as long as all of the
layers are laminated and are in overlying relation to each
other” (sentence bridging pages 15 and 16 of answer). We find
no error in the examiner’s finding that “the two scrim materials
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007