Appeal No. 2005-0961
Application No. 09/990,787
re Hyatt, 211 F.2d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir.
1998).
The examiner has properly found appealed independent claim 1
to be anticipated by Chen. This is because the claim 1 liner is
structurally indistinguishable from the liner of Chen since each
includes a hydrophilic apertured nonwoven layer laminated with a
hydrophobic apertured nonwoven layer (e.g., see Chen’s Figure 5,
the paragraph bridging pages 41 and 42 and the second full
paragraph on page 48). According to the appellants, this
anticipation finding is erroneous because the aforementioned
layers of the claim 1 liner and Chen’s liner are opposite to one
another, that is, the bodyside layer of claim 1 is the
hydrophilic layer whereas the bodyside layer of Chen is the
hydrophobic layer. This argument is unpersuasive for several
reasons.
First, this argument concerns the intended use of the claim
1 liner rather than its structure. As previously explained, a
reference disclosing recited structural limitations will
anticipate a claim even though it does not disclose the intended
use of the claim structure. Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1477, 44
USPQ2d at 1431. Here, the “bodyside” recitation of claim 1
relates solely to the disposition of the claimed liner during use
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007