Appeal No. 1998-2794 Page 3
Application No. 08/506,137
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the respective1
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
make the determinations which follow.
Turning first to the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of the claims, it is not in dispute that
Foreman discloses an absorbent article (a diaper) comprising a liquid pervious topsheet (38 or
40), a liquid impervious back sheet (42), an absorbent core (44) and at least one barrier cuff
(62) as required by claim 1. Further, the barrier cuff is provided with a spacing means (76),
which is "any member which gathers, contracts, stiffens, shortens or otherwise acts on the
barrier cuffs so as to cause the barrier cuff to stand up" to provide a channel (96) that acts as a
constraint against the leakage of exudates (column 14, lines 42-48). The sole issue in
determining whether Foreman anticipates the claims is whether the barrier cuffs (62) of
Foreman's diaper are less extensible than the topsheet.2
At the outset, we note that the term "extensible" as used in the claims "refers to articles
that can increase in at least one of their dimensions in the x-y plane" (specification, page 7, last
We note that the amendment to the first page of the specification filed August 11, 1997 (Paper No. 17) has1
been approved for entry by the examiner but has not, in fact, been entered.
2Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under the
principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys.,
Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007