Interference No. 105,019
Correa v. Roberts
18-23). Claim 11 specifically requires at least one end cuff overlying the upper permeable sheet,
as compared to Correa's claim I as prior art. The question here is whether Roberts has shown
that given Correa's claim I as prior art it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in
the art to add at least one end cuff (claim 11), to include two end cuffs (claim 12), and to have the
opening of the at least one end cuff extend across the width of the absorbent core (claim 13).
Correa cites the two references Molee and Csillag as each, in combination with the subject
matter of Correa's claim 1, rendering obvious Correa's claims 11, 12 , and 13. There appears to
be no dispute between the parties as to the scope and content of Molee and Csillag with regard to
the content thereof which is relied on by Correa to render obvious Correa's claims I I -13.
Roberts acknowledges that Molee does not disclose raised or stand-up barrier cuffs which move
away from the permeable sheet when the article is flexed to contain fluids or exudates, but
compressed channels or other fluid impervious or repellant material impregnated into the
absorbent core. (Motion page 17, line 21, to page 18, line 4) Roberts further acknowledges that
both Molec and Csillag describe barriers which are incorporated into the core itself rather than
barriers disposed on the top facing permeable sheet and which stand away from such sheet as is
required by Correa's claims 11-13. (Motion at 20, lines 15-17).
Accordingly, the issue is simply the legal conclusion of obviousness or unobviousness
where all the underlying factual inquiries are not in dispute, because the parties have also agreed
as to the level of ordinary skill in the arL We agree with Roberts that Correa's claims 11-13
would have been obvious over Correa's claim I in view of either Molee or Csillag.
- 33 -
Page: Previous 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007