Appeal No. 1999-0124
Application No. 08/467,438
In any event, even if we were to consider Thompson’s
capillaries as responding to the claimed “grooves,” the
standing rejection still would not be sustainable.
Independent claim 32 calls for the V-shaped grooves to have
side walls that form an angle (") therebetween of about 10E to
about 120E, and for the hydrophilic surface to have a contact
angle (2) with water equal to or less than 90E-"/2. Thus, the
contact angle (2) for the hydrophilic surface must be about
30E to about 85E. The examiner’s reliance on Noda for a
teaching of this relationship is not well taken. In the first
place, neither Noda nor Thompson disclose any relationship
whatsoever between groove angle (") and contact angle (2).
Second, while we appreciate that Noda’s Example VIII includes
a disclosure at column 9, lines 38-40, of an average contact
angle of a latex rubber compound of 77.5 ± 4E, this contact
angle is for a latex precursor of the material actually used
to coat the front and/or back sides of Noda’s topsheet. This
is made abundantly clear upon reading column 9, lines 41-61,
of Noda, wherein it is explained that the latex precursor is
reacted with other substances and that the resulting modified
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007