Appeal No. 2005-0580
Application No. 09/732,871
5 in the instant application as showing the claimed absorbent
structure without strips or layers and to Figures 5, 5a and 5b of
the Karami patent as extrinsic evidence that superposed strips or
layers of web material lose their layered construction when
compressed. The appellant’s Figure 5, however, is a schematic
drawing designed to depict densities rather than structural
details. Furthermore, Karami’s Figures 5, 5a, and 5b actually
belie the examiner’s position as Figure 5b shows that the layered
construction is maintained after compression.
On the record before us, there is no reasonable basis for
the examiner’s assertion that the superposed strip or folded
layer constructions recited in claims 1 and 2 would disappear
when compressed to a thickness substantially the same over the
structure. As Gravdahl does not teach, and would not have
suggested, an absorbent structure having such a strip or layer
construction, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of independent claims
1 and 2, and dependent claim 3, based on Gravdahl.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 8 and 16 as being
unpatentable over Gravdahl in view of Tunc
Independent claims 8 and 16 recite absorbent articles
comprising a liquid pervious topsheet, a liquid impervious
backsheet and an absorbent structure essentially identical to the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007