Appeal 2006-2263
Application 09/859,665
inherently is water-soluble too. However, in the alternative, it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to use the water-soluble, natural form of chitosan to make the
absorbent article more cheaply by avoiding the more expensive synthetic,
water-swellable, water-insoluble form of chitosan.
Therefore, in response to this remand, the Examiner must determine,
and make of record the results of this determination, the propriety of
rejecting at least claims 1 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)/103(c) as being
unpatentable over Hamilton US 6,562,192 B1.
This Remand to the Examiner pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1)
(2006) is not made for further consideration of a rejection. Accordingly,
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(2) (2006) does not apply.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 8-12, 14, 32-34, 36-41, and
44 under § 102(e) over Blaney is REVERSED.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 15-20 and 23-26 under § 102(e)
over Hamilton is AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2006).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART and REMANDED
cam
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013