Ex parte OSBORN - Page 5




               Appeal No. 1998-2794                                                                         Page 5                 
               Application No. 08/506,137                                                                                          


               it less extensible.  By stiffening, we understand Foreman to mean reduction of the flexibility or                   
               bendability of the barrier cuff in a direction toward and away from the topsheet, or generally                      
               perpendicular to its inboard and outboard faces, so that it will retain an orientation in which it is               
               angled upwardly away from the topsheet.  While we understand that it may be possible to apply                       
               a stiffening means such that it also restrains the extensibility of the barrier cuff in its x-y plane,              
               Foreman does not require this.   As for shortening, it is not apparent to us how a shortening of4                                                                                   

               the barrier cuff will have any impact on its extensibility from that shortened length.                              
                       For the foregoing reasons, we are constrained to reverse the examiner's rejection of                        
               claims 1-3 and 5-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).                                                                       
                       Turning next to the examiner's rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103,                      
               as discussed above, we are of the opinion that Foreman does not disclose, expressly or under                        
               principles of inherency, that the barrier cuffs are less extensible than the topsheet.  While we                    
               appreciate that it is possible, consistent with the teachings of Foreman, to have constructed the                   
               absorbent article of Foreman so as to possess this feature, the mere fact that the prior art could                  
               be so modified would not have made the modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the                      




                       Under principles of inherency, when a reference is silent about an asserted inherent characteristic, it4                                                                                                          
               must be clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and
               that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill.  Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264,   
               1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 1991).  Inherency may not be established by probabilities or possibilities.   
               The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.  In re Oelrich, 666
               F.2d 578, 581, 212 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981).                                                                       







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

Last modified: November 3, 2007