Interference No. 105,019
Correa v. Roberts
Note also that within the obviousness analysis, the proper perspective is that of a hypothetical
person having ordinary skill in the art and the parties are in agreement that such a person typically
possesses at least a bachelor's degree in chemistry or chemical engineering, material science or
other fields of engineering such as mechanical engineering and three to five years of experience in
industry.
Correa's claim I already specifies that the absorbent cuff has a layer of hydrophilic
material, is affixed along an edge of the absorbent article, and moves away from an upper sheet
when flexed "to provide a region for containing fluid." Thus, the prior art already provides that
the cuff is to serve as a barrier along an edge of the article for containing liquid therein. The
question becomes whether one with ordinary skill in the art would have deemed obvious to have a
cuff or barrier length that is not the entire length of the core but within a range of 5% to 80% of
the core length according to claim 7, and within a range of 15% to 60% of the core length
according to claim 8.
In our view, even in the absence of any additional prior art to combine with Correa's claim
1, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art that to have some useful barrier
function, the cuff need not extend to cover the entire length of the core. It is unreasonable to
conclude that someone possessing a bachelor's degree in chemistry or chemical engineering,
material science or other fields of engineering such as mechanical engineering and three to five
years of experience in industry would think that unless the cuff extended the full length of the core
it would have no useful value as a barrier element for containing liquid. Some skill in the art is
presumed. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The shorter
- 29 -
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007