Appeal No. 95-4526
Application 08/200,251
the fact situation before us, we are unable to agree with the
examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated by the teachings of Sukiennik and Nosaki to provide
a “bicomponent” cover in Sukiennik including a first material
having openings formed therethrough and a nonapertured second
material, with the second material being different from the
first material.
In light of the foregoing, we shall not sustain the
standing § 103 rejection of independent claims 1, 25, 26, 29,
30, 37, 42-46, 48, 52-54, or dependent claims 2, 3, 28, 55 and
60-63, based on the teachings Sukiennik and Nosaki.
Independent claim 47 requires that the first material in
conjunction with the separation means has a rewet value of 4
less than 0.1 grams. In rejecting this claim, the examiner
concedes that the tests described in the Kaspar affidavit
“show[] that Sukiennik’s diaper has a rewet value which
exceeds 0.1 grams” (final rejection, page 5). Nevertheless,
4As explained on pages 12-13 of the specification of the
present application: “Both the bicomponent cover 24 and the
separation means 18 are designed to minimize fluid transfer in
the upward or reverse direction. This feature, commonly
referred to as ‘a low rewet value,’ is important to providing
a dry feel to the cover 24.”
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007