CORREA et al. V. ROBERTS et al. - Page 16





               Interference No. 105,019                                                                                                
               Correa v. Roberts                                                                                                       
               that a channel is formed to restrain, contain and hold body exudates, and that such a channel                           
               inherently restrains, contains, and holds body fluids. The effect is the same as that identified by                     
               Roberts in its Clean Copy of Claims (Exhibit 2005), by reference to Item 109 of Figures 2 and 7                         
               of Roberts' specification, in connection with the wherein clause of claim 14.                                           
                       The argument set forth by Roberts with respect to claim 14 is much the same as that                             
               made with respect to claim 20. Roberts argues that the preamble of claim 14 sets forth that the                         
               claimed article is a sanitary napkin, whereas the Lawson '278 reference discloses a diaper, not a                       
               sanitary napkin. This argument is rejected for the same reasons we already discussed above in the                       
               context of claim 20. In short, the intended use of the article as a sanitary napkin does not change                     
               the structural configuration of the claimed article or the cooperative relationships of all its                         
               components, and that the term "sanitary napkin," when construed as broadly as reasonably                                
               permitted, means only an absorbent pad for wear by women during menstruation to absorb the                              
               uterine flow. The "diaper" of the Lawson '278 reference is also for wear by incontinent persons                         
               generally and is not limited to wear by infants or toddlers.                                                            
                       Claim 14 does additionally recite in its preamble that the sanitary napkin is of the type for                   
               placement in an undergarment. No evidence has been submitted by Roberts to show that such                               
               sanitary napkins for placement within an undergarment must or must not have certain particular                          
               structural features. Roberts also has not referenced any part of its specification which sets forth                     
               that such type of sanitary napkin must or must not have a certain structural feature. Roberts                           
               further has not argued that such "type" of sanitary napkins must or must not have any special                           
               structural features as distinguished from other types of sanitary napkins. Construing the term as                       
                                                              - 16 -                                                                   







Page:  Previous  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007