Interference No. 105,019
Correa v. Roberts
whether Roberts has shown that Correa's claims 7-8 and 11 -13 define the same patentable
invention as Correa's claim 1. As already noted above, the meaning of "same patentable
invention" is defined in 37 CFR § 1.601(n). Roberts has to establish that Correa's claims 7-8 and
I I -13 are either anticipated by or would have been obvious over Correa's claim 1. Roberts
asserts only that Correa's claims 7-8 and I I - 13 are each obvious over claim I of Correa.
Claim 7 of Correa reads as follows:
Disposable intimate feminine absorbent according to claim 1, in which said lateral
cuff has between approximately 5% to around 80% of the length of said absorbent
core.
Claim 8 of Correa reads as follows:
Disposable intimate feminine absorbent according to claim 1, in which said lateral
cuff has between approximately 15% to around 60% of the length of said
absorbent core.
Because in the appropriate analysis the subject matter of Correa's claim I is presumed as
prior art, the only difference between each of claims 7 and 8 and the prior art is the particular
length of the cuff recited in these dependent claims, i.e., within a range from 5% to 80% of the
core length in the case of Correa's claim 7, and within a range from 15% to 60% of the core
length in the case of Correa's claim 8.
At the outset, we note that Roberts need not demonstrate that the invention including the
particular and precise ranges specified in Correa's claims 7 and 8 relative to the core length would
have been obvious. Rather, it is necessary for Roberts to establish only the obviousness of the
article having a cuff length to core length ratio that is anywhere within the specified ranges. It is
not the entire range which must be taught or suggested by prior art, but only some point within.
- 28 -
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007