Interference No. 105,019
Correa v. Roberts
The embodiment of the sanitary napkin shown in FIG 7 is provided with the barrier
means 62 joined to the topsheet 38. The term "joined" includes any means for
affixing the barrier means [62] to the sanitary napkin and includes embodiments
wherein the barrier means 62 is a separate element having the proximal edge 64
directly or indirectly attached to the topsheet 38 (i.e. integral) or embodiments
wherein the barrier means 62 is made from the same element or material as the
topsheet 38 so that the proximal edge 64 is a continuous and undivided element of
the topsheet (i.e. unitary). The barrier means 62 may alternatively be joined to
the side flap 58, the backsheet 42, the absorbent core 44, the topshect 38 or any
combination of these or other elements of the sanitary napkin. (Emphasis added.)
The above-quoted disclosure does not require the barrier element to have any extension in the
direction of extension of the flap. The disclosure is much broader than what the claim requires.
We recognize that in Roberts' Figure 7, barrier element 62 is attached to the topsheet 38
in a surface area of the topsheet at the fixed end of flap 58, and the manner of attachment, shown
by reference numeral 92 representing adhesive, appears to reveal a very small extension of the
barrier element in the direction of the free end of the flap 58. But it is our view that when
considered in light of the specification, and particularly the above-quoted portion of the
specification, what is shown in Figure 7 is merely that the contact between the barrier element and
the topsheet is no more than that necessary for applying adhesive 92 forjoining the two. To say
that the barrier element is included as a part of the flap, in that context, is without adequate basis,
speculative, and reflects hindsight reconstruction in light of the content of claim 23.
To satisfy the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, the
specification must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing
date of the application, the inventor was in possession of the invention now claimed. Seee.p.,
Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64,19USPQ2d 1111, 1117, (Fed. Cir. 1991);
- 21 -
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007