Appeal 2007-1560
Application 10/680,968
relaxed state, (which is equated to the claimed non-tensioned state)
to another layer such as a nonwoven fabric. The elastic composite is
activated by stretching (Answer 8). The Examiner recognizes that
Coles does not disclose the retraction capability. The Examiner
contends that Osborn teaches absorbent articles comprising
extendable materials for the topsheet and/or the backsheet of the
article. The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed an extensible top-
sheet or backsheet in the absorbent article of Coles, motivated by the
expectation that this would enhance the comfort of the wearer of the
absorbent article (Answer 9).
Appellants contend that the Examiner has not provided a
reference or combination of references that teach or suggest all of
the claimed elements (Br. 9). Appellants contend that Coles alone
and in combination with Osborn fails to teach the claimed elements
of the subject invention, namely, at least the extensible fluid
permeable liner material. Specifically, Appellants state:
Coles and Osborn, alone or in combination, fail to teach or
suggest all of the claim limitations. . . . Of particular note, the
cited Coles reference fails to teach or suggest an extensible,
fluid permeable liner material, such liner material being a
clearly recited element of the subject invention and necessary
to practice the inventive liner composite. The Oftice Action
recognizes that this element is missing from the Coles
reference in two regards. First, the Office Action recognizes
that Coles does not disclose a retraction capability differential.
Second, the Office Action recognizes that Coles only
discloses a layer that is generally inextensible and only
extends, if at all, at most 5% across the wide range of force
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013