Appeal No. 2005-0961
Application No. 09/990,787
and therefore does not serve to structurally distinguish the
claim liner from Chen’s liner.
Second, as correctly pointed out by the examiner and not
disputed by the appellants, Chen discloses an embodiment wherein
his dual-zone web or liner is formed of apertured multiple plies
(e.g., again see the second full paragraph on page 48). Because
each of these apertured multiple plies would comprise a
hydrophilic apertured nonwoven layer laminated with a hydrophobic
apertured nonwoven layer, the ultimate multi-ply product would
necessarily contain a hydrophilic layer disposed between a first
hydrophobic layer (e.g., in contact with a body) and a second
hydrophobic layer (e.g., in contact with Chen’s absorbent core).
We fully agree with the examiner’s finding that this sandwiched
hydrophilic layer would be properly characterized as “bodyside”
relative to the second hydrophobic layer. Viewed from this
perspective, Chen’s multi-ply embodiment would read on all
aspects of appealed claim 1 including the “bodyside” recitation
thereof.
In this latter regard, it is appropriate to emphasize the
examiner’s well taken point that the claim term “bodyside” merely
requires the layer in question to be on the side which is nearer
to the body as opposed to requiring that the layer be “body-
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007