Appeal No. 2006-1493
Application No. 10/037,276
1 length, a maximum width of no greater than about
2 70 mm, a widest portion, a width at the widest
3 portion, a narrowest portion, a width at the
4 narrowest portion which is smaller than said width
5 at the widest portion, a maximum thickness of no
6 greater than about 10 mm, first (70) and second
7 (72) end regions and a central region (74) disposed
8 between the first and second end regions, and first
9 (80) and second (82) spaced apart longitudinal
10 sides, the longitudinal sides together with the
11 transverse ends generally forming the periphery of
12 the absorbent, wherein the widest portion of the
13 absorbent is not situated in the central region, and
14 the article is to be folded parallel to said
15 longitudinal axis prior to disposition within the
16 vestibule of the wearer.
17
18 The Evidence
19 The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
20 unpatentability:
21 McFall US 6,432,096 B1 Aug. 13, 2002
22 The Rejections
23 Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 5-
24 10, 13-17, 27, 28, and 31-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated
25 by McFall and claims 3, 4, 11, 12, 18, 22-26, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. §
26 103(a) as being unpatentable over McFall.1
1 The Vukos patent (US 5,484,429) cited on page 3 of the Answer has not
been considered because it was not positively included in the statement of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013