Appeal No. 2005-2540
Application No. 10/026,629
Accordingly, we shall reverse all of the rejections at issue.
The basis for our decision is as follows:
REJECTION (1)
Initially, we note that while this rejection involves
Goldman and Bahia, Bahia is apparently relied upon by the
examiner only in connection with dependent claims 4-5, 8, 10, 12,
16, and 18. Since we shall focus upon the three independent
claims on appeal, further discussion of Bahia is unnecessary.
With regard to the three independent claims, article claims
1 and 14 both require that “the amount of polymer particles
enclosed in the bag is in excess compared to the theoretical
amount that would be just required to fill up the bag when they
are in the full swollen state.” We find nothing in Goldman which
teaches or suggests this feature, the examiner’s assertions to
the contrary notwithstanding.
We agree with the appellants (reply brief: p. 6) that if one
of ordinary skill in the art were desirous of optimizing the
amount of polymer particles in Goldman’s absorbent article,
optimization would at most lead only to the theoretical amount
necessary to fill up the article when the particles are in their
fully swollen state. There is no apparent reason why one would
consider using more than the theoretical amount in the prior art.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007