Appeal No. 97-4294 Page 10
Application No. 08/294,155
With this as background, we analyze the specific
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 made by the examiner of the
independent claims on appeal. The examiner determined (final
rejection, p. 3) that
Pieniak discloses the material ratios of the
absorbent structure substantially as claimed, however,
Pieniak does not explicitly set forth liquid uptake rates
in terms of the article with no wettable staple fiber.
As concerns this deficiency, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art that
since the matrix of Pieniak does satisfy the broad staple
fiber, binder fiber and superabsorbing polymer percentage
limitations that under specific conditions the article
would satisfy the uptake limitations.
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 4-6) that Pieniak does
not suggest (1) wettable stable fibers, (2) wettable binder
fibers, or (3) that the absorbent structure exhibits the
claimed liquid uptake rate improvement.
In our opinion, the claimed subject matter would not have
been obvious from the teachings of Pieniak. In that regard,
Pieniak teaches that the superabsorbent is present in an
amount of at least 10% by weight of a first fibrous layer, and
preferably from about 20% to about 90%. The first fibrous
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007