Appeal No. 2000-0286 Page 9
Application No. 08/704,031
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 8 to 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
To establish prima facie obviousness of a claimed
invention, all the claim limitations must be taught or
suggested by the prior art. In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 180
USPQ 580 (CCPA 1974). "All words in a claim must be considered
in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior
art." In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA
1970). Thus, even a claim limitation which lacks written
description support cannot be disregarded.
In this case, the inner sheet 15 of Watanabe's absorbent
body 3 (which corresponds to the claimed topsheet of the
liquid-absorbent pad) is liquid permeable not liquid
impermeable as claimed. Since the applied prior art would not
have suggested making the inner sheet 15 of Watanabe's
absorbent body 3 impermeable, we must reverse the decision of
the examiner to reject claims 8 to 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007