Appeal 2007-0724
Reexamination Control 90/006,775
Patent 6,428,526
1 The examiner offers an interpretation of claim 1. Based on this
2 interpretation, the examiner holds that Dragoo, and by incorporation, Buell
3 and Nestegard as well as the combined teachings of Buell, Nestegard, and
4 the ‘777 Board decision either anticipate or render obvious the subject
5 matter of claim 1. The examiner further holds that it would have been
6 obvious to combine the teachings of Roessler and Caldwell.
7 We affirm-in-part and enter a new ground of rejection.
8 GROUPING OF CLAIMS
9 The appellants argue claims 1-11 as one group and claims 12-22 as
10 another group. Therefore, for purposes of this appeal, claims 2-11 stand or
11 fall with the patentability of claim 1, and claims 13-22 stand or fall with the
12 patentability of claim 12. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006).
13 ISSUES
14 Have the appellants shown that the examiner incorrectly interpreted
15 the following language of claim 1:
16 said stemlike projections being releasably engaged with said
17 disposable absorbent article to protect said hook material and
18 provide a pant-like structure before said disposable absorbent
19 article is packaged[?]
20
21 Have the appellants shown that the examiner has failed to establish
22 that Dragoo, and by incorporation, Buell and Nestegard anticipate or would
23 have rendered obvious a package comprising a plurality of diapers wherein
24 each diaper has stemlike projections releasably engaged with the diaper to
25 provide a pant-like structure as required by claim 1?
26 Have the appellants shown that the examiner has failed to establish
27 that the combined teachings of Buell, Nestegard, and the ‘777 Board
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013