Appeal No. 2002-0741
Application No. 08/935,348
examiner’s part because it fails to take into account that most
of these limitations are found in Zacharias PCT ‘238, which we
have found to be available as prior art against claim 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Accordingly, as argued, the rejection of
claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will be sustained.
Rejection (d): the rejection of claims 1, 4-6 and 8-12 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b)
Claims 1, 4-6 and 8-12, stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Zacharias PCT ‘238.
Independent claim 1 is directed to a sanitary napkin
comprising an absorbent core, and a hot melt, pressure sensitive
adhesive secured to the body-side surface of the core. As set
forth in paragraph (b) of claim 1, the adhesive comprises
at least one block copolymer and a liquid diluent, the
adhesive being characterized by a midblock Tg of less
than -10° C., a G’ (storage modulus) less than 15x104
dynes/cm2 at 10 rad/s. (25° C.), a G” (loss modulus) of
1 to 6x104 dynes/cm2, a tensile strength greater than
10 psi, and which adhesive requires no subsequent
curing operation after cooling.
Appellants have not pointed out, and it is not apparent to
us, where there is descriptive support in application 08/659,858,
now U.S. Patent 6,213,993 B1, for this subject matter. Finding
no such descriptive support, we conclude, as did the examiner,
that claim 1, as well as claims 4-6 and 8-12 that depend
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007