Ex Parte Beitz et al - Page 5



              Appeal No. 2007-0517                                                                                       
              Application No. 10/768,647                                                                                 
              expressly or inherently, each and every element of claim 12.  In particular                                
              Applicant argues that the Examiner failed to demonstrate that Roslund teaches a                            
              piece of splicing material having the fluid permeability of at least about 25% as                          
              great as the fluid permeability of the absorbent materials being spliced together.                         
              (Id. at 14-15).                                                                                            
                     The Examiner contends that the Applicant’s claimed spliced region only                              
              requires that the spliced region fall within the splicing material.  From this, the                        
              Examiner concludes that holes within a splicing material could constitute                                  
              Applicant’s spliced region.  The Examiner then contends that Roslund renders                               
              Applicant claim 1 unpatentable as Roslund teaches a splicing material formed with                          
              cement strip having holes, the holes constituting Applicant’s spliced region having                        
              a fluid permeability at least about as great as the absorbent materials being spliced                      
              together.  (Examiner’s Answer, p. 6).                                                                      
                     As to Applicant claim 12, the Examiner states that Roslund teaches that the                         
              absorptive capacity of the splicing region is “dependent upon the total area of the                        
              openings while at the same time keeping the area of the openings within practical                          
              limits to make a strong seam.”  (Id. at p. 7).  The Examiner contends that one of                          
                                                                                                                        
              permeability of Roslund’s splicing region and states:                                                      
                     In addition to the reasons set forth in Appellant’s Reply Brief and                                 
                     Appeal Brief, the rejections of the claims on appeal are in error for the                           
                     reasons set forth above.  Therefore, Appellant’s again request that the                             
                     Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-12 be reversed.                                                   
              (Second Reply Brief, p. 4).                                                                                

                                                           5                                                             



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013