Appeal 2006-3388
Application 10/246,800
1 teachings of Whitmore because Whitmore relates to a non-elastic substrate
2 adhered to a superabsorbent polymer to form an acquisition layer. While it
3 may be true that the Whitmore non-elastic absorbent article is an acquisition
4 layer which is only required to temporarily hold fluids, such a layer is
5 nevertheless an absorbent layer. The teaching in Whitmore that the process
6 disclosed results in an absorbent article with a more evenly distributed
7 superabsorbent polymer thereby resulting in an article that more evenly
8 absorbs fluid, is equally, if not more, applicable to the Osborn elastic article
9 which is required to permanently hold fluids. We note that the application
10 of the known process as evidenced in Whitmore to improve the even
11 absorption of the Osborne absorbent article is nothing more than using a
12 known technique to improve a similar device in the same way and would
13 have been obvious at the time of the invention. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
14 Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
15 In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
16 claim 1. We will also sustain this rejection as it is directed to claims 2 to 28,
17 49 to 59 and 61 to 71 because the Appellants have not argued the separate
18 patentability of these claims.
19 We will not sustain the rejection as it is directed to claims 31 to 45,
20 47, and 48 because neither Osborn nor Whitmore discloses a superabsorbent
21 polymer spread through at least about 50% of the thickness of the
22 elastomeric substrate as required by claim 31. While the Examiner is correct
23 that the superabsorbent polymer disclosed in Osborn has a z direction
24 distribution of the superabsorbent material in the elastomeric substrate, such
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013