Interference No. 105,019
Correa v. Roberts
from the indication in Correa's claim 1 that the absorbent cuff is for containing liquid and also
from the indication in Molee that the transverse barrier is for inhibiting the transmission of body
fluid to the ends of the article (column 4, lines 62-66) and in Csillag that the impregnated narrow
zones are for providing an effective barrier to leakage (column 5, lines 53-55). The nature of the
problem is revealed in both Molee and Csillag as well as Correa's claim I as prior art. Any
improper reliance by Roberts on the specification of Correa in that regard is of no consequence.
Although not cited by Roberts in connection with its preliminary Motion 1, we find it
appropriate to note, but not relying thereon for our decision, the following passage of the Lawson
'246 reference (Exhibit 1008) in column 7, lines 30-37:
The elastically contractible gasketing cuffs 56 are disposed adjacent the
periphery 28 of the diaper 20, preferably along each longitudinal edge 30 so that
the gasketing cuffs 56 tend to draw and hold the diaper 20 against the legs of the
wearer. Alternatively, a gasketing cuff 56 may be disposed adjacent either or both
of the end [upper and lower] edges 32 of the diaper 20 to provide a waistcuff
rather than leg cuffs.
Roberts need not have relied on the Lawson '246 reference, because Molee and Csillag already
provide the necessary suggestion to have barriers on the longitudinal ends which extend across the
width of the absorbent article.
Roberts' Preliminary Motion I is granted.
35 -
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007