Appeal 2006-2708
Application 09/824,454
outer layers. The absorbent structure of Cohen comprises a plurality of
distinct, planar regions between the outer layers (see a discussion of the
separate and distinct second and third layers at col. 6-7 of the reference).
Although the second and third layers of Cohen may comprise the same or
similar components, the fact remains that they are distinct in nature.
It is the Examiner’s position that “[t]he second and third layers, [of
Cohen] in combination, are analogous to the inner layer claimed by
Applicant” (Answer 3, last para.). However, whether there is an analogy
between Cohen’s second and third layers and the presently claimed inner
layer is of no moment. To sustain a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 a
reference must provide an identical description of all the claimed features.
The Examiner submits that “[t]he present impasse raises a question of
semantics” (Answer 5, last para.). But no semantical analysis can result in
an inner layer of Cohen being bonded to both outer layers. Also, we find no
merit in the Examiner’s rationale that “’inner’ layer(s) are any and all layers
between ‘outer’ layers” (id.). We find no factual basis for interpreting the
presently claimed “inner layer” as comprising a plurality of layers, and the
Examiner has apprised us of none.
Also, while the Examiner cites the “comprising” language of the
appealed claims and states that “the preambular ‘multilayer’ structure,
encompasses structures with more than three layers” (Answer 6, second
para.), the claim nevertheless requires an inner layer to be bonded to both
outer layers.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013