Appeal 2006-2347
Application 10/245,350
Supplemental Appeal Brief (filed June 26, 2006), and reply brief (filed April 14,
2006) for the appellant's arguments.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully considered the
appellant’s specification and claims, the applied prior art, and the respective
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations that follow.
In the rejection of independent claims 1, 11, and 17, the examiner
determined that Branch discloses a feminine hygiene device in the nature of a short
comprising a liquid impervious cloth for covering the pelvic region and legs.
Answer, p. 3 (citing Branch, col. 1, lines 58-67). The section of Branch cited by
the examiner describes an outer layer made of a soft tricot, spandex, or other panty
material which is partially or fully lined with a soft plastic film. Branch describes
that the soft film is a smooth non-woven material, microporous in nature, to
prevent the passage of liquids. The examiner further determined that Branch
discloses vertical side bands (6, 7) comprising the outer layer (5) of the device,
which is elastic. Answer, p. 3 (citing Branch, col. 2, lines 61-63). The examiner
found that the side bands (6, 7) are elastic by nature and provide a snug fit around
the wearer. Answer, p. 3. The examiner further found that the main body portion
December 23, 2005. The appellant then filed a Corrected Appeal Brief on January
9, 2006. We refer to this Corrected Appeal Brief throughout the opinion as the
appellant’s brief. The appellant also filed a Supplemental Appeal Brief on June 23,
2006 to add evidence and related proceedings appendices.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007