CORREA et al. V. ROBERTS et al. - Page 18





              Interference No. 105,019                                                                                              
              Correa v. Roberts                                                                                                     
              understanding that the term "flap" as applied to absorbent articles has long been understood to                       
              denote the elongated structures extending from the sides of the main body of the absorbent article,                   
              albeit what is referred to as "the elongated structures" by the parties is not entirely clear. Neither                
              party presented evidence that the term "flap" has a special meaning in the art that is contrary to its                
              ordinary meaning or usage in the English language. To the extent party Roberts has argued for                         
              such a special meaning, the argument is rejected.                                                                     
                      Claim 14 does not specify the particular function of the recited flaps. Accordingly, flaps                    
              which serve as ties or flaps which provide a gasketing function are both adequate to meet the                         
              recitation. Senior party Roberts had ample opportunity to amend its application claims as a                           
              response to junior party's preliminary motion 2 to recite particularly that the flaps tie the sanitary                
              napkin to the undergarment. Had it done so, the Lawson '278 reference would not be sufficient                         
              to meet what is claimed. But that is not the circumstance now before us.                                              
                      With regard to claims 15, 16 and 18, each of which depends from claim 14, Roberts does                        
              not dispute that the Lawson '278 reference discloses the features additionally recited in those                       
              claims relative to independent claim 14. Claim 19 depends from claim 14 and further recites that                      
              said flap is an extension of the topsheet and the backsheet. Roberts admits and does not dispute                      
              Correa's statement that the Lawson '278 reference discloses that the side flaps 58 are formed                         
              from the extension of the backsheet 42 and the topsheet 38. We find that the feature set forth in                     
              claim 19 is indeed met by the Lawson '278 reference, which in column 7, lines 56-57, states "the                      
              side flaps 58 are formed from the extension of the backsheet 42 and the topsheet 38                                   
               .... Claim 22 depends from claim 20 and further recites that the barrier elements comprise a                         
                                                             - 18 -                                                                 






Page:  Previous  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007