Ex parte OSBORN - Page 4




               Appeal No. 1998-2794                                                                         Page 4                 
               Application No. 08/506,137                                                                                          


               line, to page 8, line 2).  Further, the x-y plane is a plane generally parallel to the faces of the                 
               absorbent article.                                                                                                  
                       We note that there is no disclosure in Foreman regarding the degree of extensibility of                     
               the topsheet in its x-y plane (parallel to the top and bottom surfaces thereof).  In the illustrated                
               embodiment, the barrier cuff (62) is extensible in a (x-y) plane parallel to its inboard and                        
               outboard surfaces in that it is gathered or contracted (column 14, lines 58-60) by a spacing                        
               means in the form of an elastic member (77) and can be extended to an ungathered or                                 
               uncontracted position by the application of force.  Quite simply, we find no teaching in                            
               Foreman which indicates that the barrier cuff is less extensible than the topsheet.                                 
                       The examiner's position (final rejection, page 4), which appears to rely on other                           
               alternative forms of spacing means discussed in column 16, lines 3-29, is that:                                     
                       [i]f the barrier and top sheet are made of the same material, all material being                            
                       "extensible" or having "give" in all directions to some extent, and the barrier is                          
                       made stiffer or shortened from its original length which can also be the same as                            
                       that of the topsheet, the barrier will have less give or extensibility due to its                           
                       being shortened or stiffer than the topsheet.                                                               
                       Even accepting the examiner's initial assumption that the barrier cuff and topsheet are                     
               made of the same material, an assertion for which we find no basis in Foreman , it does not3                                
               necessarily follow that stiffening or shortening the barrier cuff as taught by Foreman will make                    


                       In fact, Foreman's disclosure that the topsheet must be liquid pervious (column 3, line 36) and the barrier3                                                                                                          
               preferably liquid impermeable (column 13, lines 16-17) suggests to us that the materials of the barrier cuff and    
               topsheet, even if made from the same fiber, film or foam, must be processed differently so as to possess different  
               properties, which may or may not affect the extensibility of the product.                                           







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007