CORREA et al. V. ROBERTS et al. - Page 32





              Interference No. 105,019                                                                                              
              Correa v. Roberts                                                                                                     
              skill in the art, we are of the view that it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the                
              art to put in place a cuff having an extent within the broad ranges specified in Correa's claim 7                     
              (5% to 80% of the core length) and Correa's claim 8 (15% to 60% of core length).'                                     
                      As for Correa's claim 11, the parties are in agreement that the differences between                           
              Correa's claim 11 and Correa's claim I is simply that (Motion ý 24) "claim I I in addition to                         
              claiming [an] absorbent cuff running along at least one edge of the absorbent, also claims at least                   
              one end cuff overlying the upper permeable sheet," and that "claim I I does not expressly recite a                    
              lateral wing like claim 1 does."                                                                                      
                      Correa's claim 12 reads as follows:                                                                           
                              Disposable intimate feminine absorbent according to claim 11, in which                                
                      there are two end cuffs.                                                                                      
                      Correa's claim 13 reads as follows:                                                                           
                              Disposable intimate feminine absorbent according to claim 11, in which                                
                      said opening of said end cuff extends across the width of the said absorbent core.                            
                      In Correa's specification, end cuffs are cuffs in the transverse direction which are useful                   
              for preventing longitudinal leakages (Elements 330 and 340 in Figures 9 and 10; Column 8, lines                       


                      1 The other items of prior art cited by Roberts, i.e., U.S. Patent No. 4,936,839                              
              ("Molee"), U.S. Patent No. 4,015,604 ("Csillag"), and U.S. Patent No. 4,589,876 ("Van                                 
              Tilburg") are not very pertinent. Csillag and Van Tilburg appear to use barrier or seal elements                      
              along the entire length of the absorbent core. As for Molee, while it is true that barrier means 65                   
              does not extend to cover the entire length of the absorbent core (Figure 5), full length coverage                     
              there is not necessary because Molee also employs transverse compressed channels 24 and 26 to                         
              keep fluids from reaching the upper and lower ends. Because Correa's claims 7 and 8 do not                            
              require something like Melee's elements 24 and 26, it cannot be said that partial length coverage                     
              without also requiring transverse barriers would have been obvious.                                                   
                                                             - 32 -                                                                 






Page:  Previous  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007