Appeal No. 96-1410
Application No. 08/321,384
We turn first to the rejection of claim 1 as being
anticipated by Meyer for the reasons set forth by the examiner in
the final rejection. In the final rejection, the examiner stated
The component layers of Examples 2 and 3 (columns 15 and 17)
have a positive density gradient from the topsheet layer to
the absorbent pad, because the bulk density of the topsheet
layer is computed to be about 0.097 g/cc (column 15, lines
13-16), the bulk density of the transport layer is around
0.101 g/cc (column 15, lines 37-39), and the bulk density of
the absorbent pad is about 0.15 g/cc (column 15, lines 26-
27). [pp. 2-3]
Meyer discloses in Example 7 (column 17) that an absorbent
article was constructed comprising the transport layer of Example
3 (column 15) interposed between the topsheet and the absorbent
pad described in Example 2 (column 15). Example 3 disclosed a
transport layer formed from a powder-bonded-carded-web having a
basis weight of about 30 g/yd , a bulk thickness of about 0.0142
inch and a bulk density of approximately 0.10 g/cc. Example 2
disclosed a topsheet layer composed of bilobal polypropylene
fibers spunbond to form a web having a bulk thickness of about
0.011 inch and a basis weight of about 0.8 oz/yd . In addition,2
the absorbent pad in Example 2 was composed of about 36 grams of
woodpulp fluff and about 5 grams of polyacrylate superabsorbent
polymer. The absorbent pad had a bulk thickness of approximately
0.24 inch and a bulk density of about 0.15 g/cc.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007