Ex Parte Kim et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2005-0961                                                        
          Application No. 09/990,787                                                  
          second apertured nonwoven layer 42.  This liner may be part of a            
          pantiliner which includes a liquid impervious baffle 27 and an              
          absorbent core 23.  This appealed subject matter is adequately              
          represented by independent claims 1 and 13 which read as follows:           
               1. A liner for personal care products comprising a                     
          hydrophilic first bodyside apertured nonwoven layer laminated               
          with a hydrophobic second apertured nonwoven layer.                         
               13. A pantiliner comprising a liquid permeable liner, a                
          liquid impervious baffle, and an absorbent core positioned                  
          therebetween, wherein said liner comprises a hydrophilic first              
          bodyside apertured nonwoven layer laminated by a spunlace process           
          with a hydrophobic second apertured nonwoven layer.                         
               The reference set forth below is relied upon by the examiner           
          in the section 102 rejection before us:                                     
          Chen et al.              WO 98/42290              Oct. 1, 1998              
               Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under the second paragraph of            
          35 U.S.C. § 112 for failing to particularly point out and                   
          distinctly claim the subject matter which the appellants regard             
          as their invention.                                                         
               All of the appealed claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C.                
          § 102(b) as being anticipated by Chen.1                                     
               1                                                                      
               1 With respect to this rejection, the appellants have                  
          separately grouped the rejected claims such that claims 1-12, 15            
          and 16 constitute Group I and claims 13 and 14 constitute Group             
          II.  See page 4 of the brief.  Therefore, in assessing the merits           
          of the section 102 rejection, we will focus on independent claims           
                                                                  (continued...)      
                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007