Appeal No. 1998-2834
Application 08/659,858
We take up first for consideration the examiner’s
rejection of claim 18 as being unpatentable over Kao KK in
view of Kenney.
In rejecting this claim under § 103, the examiner
considers that Kao KK discloses an absorbent article generally
as claimed including, a cover 2 having a bodyfacing surface
and a garmentfacing surface, an absorbent core 4 adjacent the
garmentfacing surface, and a pressure sensitive adhesive 5 for
contacting the user’s skin secured to the bodyfacing surface.
The examiner implicitly concedes that Kao KK is silent as to
the particulars of the adhesive. Nevertheless, the examiner
considers that “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to select an adhesive having a tan delta in
the claimed range” (answer, page 5) in view of the teachings
of Kenney. In this regard, the examiner considers that Kenney
discloses that “it is known in the art of retaining absorbent
articles on the body that use an adhesive having the tan delta
claimed is desirable” (answer, page 4).
Appellants’ argument in favor of patentability is based
on the tan * limitations found in the last paragraph of claim
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007