Appeal No. 2002-0741
Application No. 08/935,348
Appellants also argue that Paul does not qualify as prior
art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because the filing date of Paul
(August 8, 1995) is after the date appellants completed their
invention. Claim 3 adds to claim 1 that the major surface of the
sanitary napkin (i.e., the surface to be positioned against a
wearer’s skin) “has a longitudinal dimension less than 9 inches
and a transverse dimension less than 3.5 inches.” Claim
7 depends from claim 1 through claim 5 and adds that the adhesive
is applied “to provide an adhesive weight less than about 1500
mg/in2.” Claims 3 and 7 are directed to the same patentable
invention as Paul’s claims 1 and 2 because the limitation added
by claim 3 is taught by and would have been obvious in view of
the disclosures of Vukos (see page 25, lines 16-24) and Lichstein
(see paragraph bridging columns 6 and 7), and because the
limitation added by claim 7 is taught by and would have been
obvious in view of the disclosure of Lichstein (see column 7,
line 45, through column 8, line 39). Accordingly, 37 CFR § 1.131
once against is not available to appellants to swear behind the
filing date of the Paul reference.
The only other arguments made by appellants specifically
directed to the Section 103(a) rejection of claims 3 and 7 is
found on page 24 of the main brief, wherein appellants argue that
25
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007