Appeal No. 1997-3103
Application 08/449,647
USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974), we affirm the rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Pigneul in combination with Raley.
We also affirm this rejection for the following
additional reason.
Raley discloses a fibrous layer (5) having a pattern of
thermal bonds (7) through its entire thickness (figure 2; col.
8, lines 31-61).
Appellant argues that “[c]ombining Pigneul with Raley
produces a two-layer fibrous structure having, at best,
superabsorbent compressed into the thermal pattern bonds to
set the superabsorbent (revised brief, page 5). Such a
compressed superabsorbent, however, would be capable of
expanding in the downward Z-direction of Raley’s figure 2.
Consequently, the invention recited in appellant’s claim 3
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of appellant’s invention over the combined teachings
of Raley and Pigneul.
Claim 13
The examiner does not explain how combining the teachings
of Raley and Pigneul would produce a structure in which the
-11-11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007