Appeal 2006-2014
Application 09/745,006
Regarding Appellant’s third argued distinction, Tanzer’s Figure 12
shows that bodyside layer 54 (i.e., flap or pocket sheet) is spaced from the
envelope web (i.e., fluid permeable body-side layer) that surrounds
absorbent assembly 52 to form a pocket. Therefore, Tanzer satisfies
Appellant’s third argued distinction.
From the foregoing, Tanzer satisfies all three of Appellant’s argued
distinctions. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection of
argued claims 3, 9, 18 and non-argued claims 2, 4-7, and 10-14.
35 USC § 103(a) REJECTION OVER TANZER IN VIEW OF IGAUE
Appellant’s only argued distinction with regard to the § 103(a)
rejection over Tanzer in view of Igaue is that neither Tanzer nor Igaue
disclose “a pleated flap sheet directly attached to the body-side liner” (Br.
14-15).
This is the same distinction argued above regarding the § 102(b)
rejection over Tanzer. As discussed above, Tanzer discloses such a claim
feature. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of
argued claim 15 and non-argued claims 16 and 17 over Tanzer in view of
Igaue.
35 USC § 103(a) REJECTION OVER SCHAAR IN VIEW OF SAUER,
IGAUE AND FOREMAN
Appellant argues that Schaar, Igaue, Sauer or Foreman do not disclose
pleats that define a pocket for collection of fecal matter (Br. 11). With
regard to Schaar, Appellant argues that Schaar’s flap 48 has peripheral pleats
when in a storage position, however, when in a use position as shown in
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013