Appeal No. 96-1410
Application No. 08/321,384
Thus, the issue presented by this rationale is whether
Example 7 of Meyer provides a predetermined positive density
gradient from the topsheet layer to the transport layer.
We agree with the appellants' argument (brief, pp. 4-6) that
the disclosure in Examples 2, 3 and 7 of Meyer does not clearly
disclose a predetermined positive density gradient from the
topsheet layer to the transport/transfer layer. The examiner
computed the bulk density of the topsheet layer to be about 0.097
g/cc from Meyer's disclosure that the topsheet has a bulk
thickness of about 0.011 inch and a basis weight of about 0.8
oz/yd . However, we agree with the appellants that this computed2
bulk density is not scientifically accurate since the computed
bulk density can only be accurate to one significant figure.
Thus, when the examiner's computed bulk density of about 0.097
g/cc is rounded to one significant figure, the resulting bulk
density of about 0.1 g/cc is the same as the disclosed bulk
density of the transport/transfer layer. Accordingly, it is our
opinion that the limitation "said respective layers have a
predetermined positive density gradient from the cover layer to
the reservoir layer" of claim 1 is not anticipated by Examples 2,
3 and 7 of Meyer.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007