Appeal No. 95-4526
Application 08/200,251
the separation means “has a rewet value which is at least 10%
lower than the rewet value of said second material without
said
separation means.” In rejecting this claim, the examiner has
taken the position that
since Applicants’ bicomponent cover is of the same
nature as Sukiennik’s, as modified by the Japanese
patent, and Sukiennik’s separation layer is made of
the same materials as disclosed by Applicants’ [sic,
Applicants] (compare, for example, Sukiennik, column
5, lines 3-20 with page 6, lines 14-21 of the
instant application), it is reasonable to assume
that the rewet value of Sukiennik’s first material
in conjunction with the separation layer can be less
than that of the second material in conjunction with
the absorbent only . . . . [final rejection, page 4]
Given appellants’ discussion on page 3 of the reply brief
as to the various ways that the “bicomponent” cover teaching
of Nosaki could be applied in Sukiennik, and the Kaspar
affidavit test data which indicates that a flow control layer
made in accordance with the teachings of Sukiennik tends of
increase rather than decrease rewet value when used in
conjunction with a cover layer, there is no reasonable basis
for concluding that the modified Sukiennik’s absorbent article
-11-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007