Ex Parte Mitchell - Page 2



             Appeal 2006-2347                                                                                    
             Application 10/245,350                                                                              
                                               BACKGROUND                                                        
                   The appellant's invention relates to a feminine hygiene short.  Claim 1,                      
             reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.  A copy of all                 
             of the claims can be found in the appendix to the appellant’s brief.                                

                          1. A feminine hygiene device comprising a liquid                                       
                          impervious cloth for covering the pelvic region and upper                              
                          parts of the legs of a woman, and elastic side bands for                               
                          tensioning the cloth snugly about the pelvic region and                                
                          the legs.                                                                              

                   The examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:                        
                    Branch                     4,813,950                Mar. 21, 1989                            
                   The following rejection is before us for review.                                              
                1. Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 USC § 102(b) as being anticipated by                      
                   Branch.                                                                                       
                   Rather than reiterate in detail the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the                    
             examiner and the appellant regarding this appeal, we make reference to the                          
             examiner's answer (mailed March 15, 2006) for the examiner's complete reasoning                     
             in support of the rejection and to the appellant's brief (filed January 9, 2006)1,                  

                                                                                                                
             1 The appellant filed an Appeal Brief on July 11, 2005; however, the examiner                       
             found the brief to be defective.  See Notification of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief                    
             (37 C.F.R. § 41.37), mailed September 19, 2005.  The appellant filed an Appeal                      
             Brief Supplement on September 29, 2005, which was also found to be defective.                       
             See Notification of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief (37 C.F.R. § 41.37), mailed                          
                                                       2                                                         




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007