Appeal 2006-2014
Application 09/745,006
In the Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection of claims 3, 9, and 18, the
Examiner finds that Tanzer’s “envelope web” wrapped around the absorbent
assembly 52 constitutes a “body-side liner” as claimed to which is attached a
liquid control assembly 102 that includes a pleated bodyside layer 54
(Answer 3-4, Tanzer’s Figure 12). Tanzer discloses that the “envelope web”
includes a “separate bodyside wrap layer . . . which extends past all or some
of the peripheral edges of [the] absorbent portion [52]” (Tanzer 35, ll. 2-16,
the “envelope web” is not shown in Tanzer’s figures), According to the
Examiner, the pleated liquid control assembly 102 corresponds to
Appellant’s “flap sheet” or “pocket sheet” (Answer 4).
Appellant’s only argued distinctions are that Tanzer does not disclose
the following features of claims 3, 9, and 18: (1) a separate flap or pocket
sheet attached directly to the body-side liner, (2) a flap or pocket sheet
attached at peripheral edges to a fluid permeable body-side liner, and (3) a
pocket between the flap or pocket sheet and the body-side liner (Br. 6).
In support of these argued distinctions, Appellant argues that Tanzer’s
“envelope web” does not correspond to the claimed “body-side liner”
(Br. 6). Rather, Appellant contends that the claimed “body-side liner”
should be construed as corresponding to Tanzer’s “bodyside layer” 54
because the plain meaning of “body-side liner” is “an outer lining that is
disposed between the absorbent core and the article user, and which contacts
the skin of the article user” (Br. 7). Based on Appellant’s construction and
definition of the claim term “body-side liner,” the she determines that, as
shown in Tanzer’s Figure 12, the “bodyside layer” 54 is itself pleated and
functions as a flap sheet such that Tanzer fails to disclose “. . . a separate
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013