Appeal No. 2004-1928 Page 4
Application No. 09/796,375
The appellants have not specifically contested this rejection in the brief or reply
brief. Accordingly, we summarily sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph.
The anticipation rejection
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 to 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated3 by Roe.
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 10-14; reply brief, pp. 3-4) only that the claimed
proportion skew factor of the absorbent core length in the back section divided by the
combined absorbent core length of the front section plus the central section to be less
than about 0.10 is not disclosed in Roe. We do not agree.
Roe's invention relates to absorbent articles such as diapers, incontinent briefs,
training pants, and the like, and more particularly, to absorbent articles having an
extensible waist feature providing dynamic fit about the wearer as well as improved
containment characteristics of the absorbent article. Figure 1 is a plan view of a diaper
3 To support a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), it must be shown that each element
of the claim is found, either expressly described or under principles of inherency, in a single prior art
reference. See Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983),
cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007