Appeal No. 2006-0041 9
Application No. 10/037,377
out of trousers, so that “[t]he sheet 4 will thus be situated on
the same side of the absorbent body as the outer layer 3” before
the diaper is used (Molnlycke, Pg. 3, lines 6-10). Therefore, in
the embodiment of Figures 1 and 2, Molnlycke describes an
absorbent article with a retainer flap (sheet 4) extending over
said baffle (outer layer 3) such that the retainer flap (sheet 4)
covers a portion of the surface opposed to the body-faceable
surface as claim 15 requires. The embodiment of Figures 3-5 also
places the sheet 4 (retainer flap) on the outer surface of the
incontinence protector. Furthermore, the Brief acknowledges that
the sheet 4 is in the claimed position by explaining that Figures
3-5 illustrate an incontinence protector for men “having a sheet
4 on the outer surface thereof.” (Brief, Pg. 7.)
Second, Appellant’s arguments too narrowly focus on the
specific embodiments of Molnlycke while ignoring other
disclosures within the reference. It is well settled that a
prior art reference is relevant for all that it teaches to those
of ordinary skill in the art. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264,
23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also Merck & Co v.
Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1847
(Fed. Cir. 1989) (A reference may be relied upon for all that it
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007