Appeal No. 2005-1969 4
Application No. 09/933,291
5. Claims 23 and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Sanfilippo in view of Darnett.
Because the Examiner’s rejections are based on an unreasonable interpretation
of “composition”, we reverse. Further, we remand the application to the Examiner for a
review of the prior art and the rejections in light of the correct interpretation of the claim
terminology. Our reasons follow.
OPINION
Reversal of the Rejections on Appeal
The determinative issue in this case centers on the interpretation of the word
“composition” in claims 1, 21, and 23, the independent claims on appeal. This is
because the Examiner makes a finding that viscose fibers taught by Darnett are a
“composition” within the meaning of the claims but Appellants argue that the viscose
fibers are not a “composition” as claimed.
In order to properly decide the issue, we first look to the claim language. The
claims all require “a liquid-permeable lower web comprising nonwoven fiber having a
hydrophilic composition thereon, the nonwoven fiber comprising at least one member
selected from the group consisting of polyolefin, polyamide, and polyester.” (see claims
1, 21, and 23). The key language here is “having a hydrophilic composition thereon.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007