Appeal No. 2006-1769
Application No. 09/784,292
is suitable for wiping a wearer’s skin during the changing of a soiled
absorbent garment. This could include materials such as cloth or
paper.
The appellants have not provided evidence demonstrating why
the cloth material disclosed in Kuen would not be suitable for wiping
a wearer’s skin during the changing of a soiled absorbent garment.
The appellants contend that the term “wipe material” has a special
meaning in the art, but the meanings provided by the appellants do not
exclude the cloth material disclosed in Kuen. A cloth material, such
as that described in Kuen ‘162, is absorbent and is suitable for wiping
a wearer’s skin during the changing of a soiled absorbent garment. As
such, we affirm the examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 38.
C. Dependent Claims 2-4, 6-20, 22-33, 35-37, 39 and 40
The appellants did not separately argue the patentability of
these dependent claims. Rather, they relied on their arguments of
patentability for independent claims 1, 21, and 34. Finding no
argument for the separate patentability of these claims, we agree with
the examiner (answer, page 3) that they should be considered to fall
with independent claims 1, 21, and 34. As such, because we affirm
the examiner’s rejection of the independent claims, we also affirm the
rejection of these dependent claims.
-17-
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007