Interference No. 105,019
Correa v. Roberts
As will be discussed in detail below, the determinative issue with respect to Correa's
Preliminary Motion 2 is whether the recitation of a "sanitary napkin" in the preamble of Roberts'
independent claims 14 and 20 is only a statement of intended use and adds nothing to the
structure already defined in the body of those claims. As a matter of claim interpretation, we
answer that question in the affirmative. At the outset, however, we first consider each recited
limitation in the body of claims 20 and 14.
The first claim feature following the preamble of claim 20 is "an absorbent core having a
body-facing surface, a garment facing surface, and longitudinal edges." According to Correa's
preliminary motion Fact ý 42, Lawson '278 discloses an absorbent core 44 disposed between a
topsheet 38 and a backsheet 42, and the backsheet is disposed away from the body of the wearer.
Also according to Correa's preliminary motion, the absorbent article is intended to be wom inside
clothing. Roberts does not dispute these alleged facts. Based on Correa's Fact ý 42 and parts of
Lawson '278 cited in that paragraph, we find that Lawson '278 discloses an absorbent core
having a body-facing surface, a garment facing surface, and longitudinal edges.
The next claim feature in claim 20 is "a liquid impervious backsheet overlying said
garment-facing side of said absorbent core." According to Correa's preliminary motion Fact ý 43,
Lawson '278 discloses a liquid impervious backsheet 42 which overlies the side of the absorbent
core away from the body of the wearer. Roberts does not dispute these alleged facts. Based on
Correa's Fact ý 43 and parts of Lawson '278 cited in that paragraph, we find that Lawson '278
further discloses a liquid impervious backsheet overlying said garment-facing side of said
absorbent core.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007