Appeal 2007-2825
Application 10/262,036
1 that it is not supported by any evidence, let alone clear and convincing
2 evidence, demonstrating that the claimed invention (1) achieves the result
3 alleged or (2) results in a new function not achieved by the catamenial
4 devices of the prior art having lotioned topsheets. Specification 1:20-21.
5
6 G. Conclusions of law
7 P&G has not sustained its burden on appeal of showing that the
8 Examiner erred in rejecting the claims on appeal as being unpatentable under
9 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Roe and Elder.
10 On the record before us, P&G is not entitled to a patent containing
11 claims 1-20 and 22.
12
13 H. Decision
14 ORDERED that the decision of the Examiner rejecting
15 claims 1-20 and 22 over the prior art is affirmed.
16 FURTHER ORDERED that no time period for taking any
17 subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37
18 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).
AFFIRMED
17
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013