Appeal No. 2007-0517
Application No. 10/768,647
iii. Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Roslund ‘097 in view of Erceg et al., U.S. Patent 4,885,820.
iv. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Roslund ‘097 in view of Erceg. ‘820 and further in view of Minarelli, U.S.
Patent 5,427,639.
v. Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Roslund ‘097 in view of Boriani et al., U.S. Patent 5,482,592.
As to claims 1-11, Applicant contends that Roslund does not “show or
otherwise suggest” a process involving the formation of a splicing region having as
great a fluid permeability as the absorbent materials being joined. (Appeal Brief,
p. 7). 2 As to claim 12, Applicant contends that Roslund fails to disclose, either
2 Applicant only specifically appealed claims 1, 5, 8 and 12 but requests that all of
the Examiner’s rejections be reversed and claims 1-12 be allowed. (For example,
compare p.2, Status of Claims with p. 18, Conclusion). The Examiner’s Answer
demonstrates that the Examiner understood Applicant’s Appeal Brief as requesting
appellate review for claims 1-12 and rejections thereof. For example, the
Examiner’s Answer states that “[t]his appeal involves claims 1-12 with claims 1, 5,
8, and 12 each being argued separately.” (Answer, p. 2, Status of Claims). We
find that both Applicant and the Examiner were of the opinion that all claims and
rejections were appealed.
We also find that both Applicant and the Examiner were of the
understanding that, should the Board reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1, the rejections of dependent claims 2-11 would likewise be
reversed. This finding is based upon our review of the positions taken in the
Appeal Brief, Examiner’s Answer, Reply Brief, Supplemental Answer, and Second
Reply Brief. For example, the Second Reply Brief focuses on the fluid
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013