Appeal No. 2002-0913
Application No. 09/107,643
limitation of claims 12 and 32 that the strip is a “padding
member,” the limitation of claims 13, 23 and 33 that the strip or
member is a “cushion,” the limitation of claims 14, 22 and 34
that the strip or member “is configured to soften the effect on
the skin of the wearer of the plastic edge,” the limitation of
claims 15, 26 and 35 that the strip or member provides “an
additional barrier against leakage,” the limitation of claims 17,
27 and 37 that the strip or member “is absorbent,” the limitation
of claims 19, 29 and 39 that the strip or member “is an absorbent
padding member positioned to provide an additional barrier
against leakage,” and the limitation of claims 20, 30 and 40 that
the strip or member “is absorbent . . . to provide an additional
barrier against leakage.” For example, and with respect to
claims 15, 19, 20, 26, 30, 35, 39 and 40, it does not necessarily
follow from the mere presence of a strip or member at an edge of
a diaper that the strip provides a barrier against leakage, as
appellant appears to argue, since the ability of a material to
act as a barrier against leakage depends, among other things,
upon the composition of that material, which the ‘681 design
application does not address.
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007