Appeal 2007-0714
Application 10/651,354
interactively interrelated as components of an alphabet block.
At least one permanent character graphic 22 is disposed in the
waist region of the article, and at least one active object graphic
is disposed in the crotch region of the article, as shown in figure
5.
(Answer 3.)
It is axiomatic that in order for a prior art reference to serve as an
anticipatory reference, it must disclose every limitation of the claimed
invention, either explicitly or inherently. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d
1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Appellants argue that the rejection should be reversed because
Timmons does not disclose a “character graphic” as defined in the
Specification, and that each rejected claim requires a permanent character
graphic (Br. 7). Appellants assert that character graphic as defined by the
Specification is “a graphic containing an anthropomorphous image, and in
particular an image having or suggesting human form or appearance which
ascribes human motivations, characteristics or behavior to inanimate objects,
animals, natural phenomena, cartoon characters, or the like.” (Br. 7-8;
Specification 5.) According to Appellants, neither the blocks nor the
alphabet letters of the Timmons patent represents an anthropomorphous
image, as they do not have or suggest a human form or appearance (Br. 8).
We agree with Appellants that Timmons does not teach a character
graphic as defined by the Specification. We do find, however, that Timmons
anticipates the absorbent article of claim 1, and we thus affirm the rejection.
But as our reasoning differs from that of the Examiner, we designate the
affirmance as a new ground of rejection.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013