Appeal No. 2001-2292
Application No. 09/072,172
the layers are determined on pages 15 and 16, (3) the testing
equipment on page 12, (4) the test procedure on pages 12 and 13,
(5) the menses stimulant used in the test procedure on pages 13
through 15, (5) examples of the composition and construction of
the distribution/retention and pad shaping layers on, for
example, pages 19, 20, 22 through 31, 40 and 41, (8) the insult
rate of the menses stimulant during the test procedure on page
26, (9) the definition of the stain size (or length) ratio on
page 28,1 and (10) the definition of the saturation profile
(ratio) and its manner of computation on pages 29 and 30.2 Given
these descriptions, it is not apparent, nor has the examiner
cogently explained, why the appellants’ disclosure would not have
enabled a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the
1 The appellants have used the terms “stain length ratio”
(claim 9 and specification page 29) and “stain size ratio”
(specification page 28) to describe the same parameter, i.e, “the
width of the stain divided by the length of the stain after the
stain has reached equilibrium” (specification page 28). In the
event of further prosecution, steps should be taken to harmonize
this terminology (“stain size ratio” would appear to be the more
accurate term).
2 Similar to the situation commented on in n.1, supra, the
appellants have used the terms “saturation profile” (claim 9 and
specification page 29) and “saturation profile ratio”
(specification page 30) to define the same parameter. Here
again, steps should be taken in the event of further prosecution
to harmonize this terminology.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007