Appeal No. 2005-2540
Application No. 10/026,629
As appellants point out, use of an excess of polymer particles in
the instantly claimed article produces a result not contemplated
by Goldman, namely that some of the particles are constrained
from swelling completely and thus capable of absorbing trace
amounts of liquid to keep the contacting surface of the bag dry
(reply brief: p. 4).
With regard to independent method claim 13, Goldman’s
absorbent article does include hydrogel-forming polymer particles
which appear to have the specific cross-linked core/shell
structure recited in the claim (Goldman: col. 16, ll. 4-20, 31-
41). However, the utility disclosed by Goldman is fundamentally
different than the method claimed by appellants.
In Goldman, the absorbent article is applied to the body in
a dry state so as to be capable of absorbing body fluids. In
contrast, the claimed method requires that the article is wetted
with water to swell the polymer particles into a gel mass, and
applied to an individual’s body while allowing water vapor to
desorb from the particles to produce a cooling effect. The
wetting and applying steps are related in that the water which is
added during the wetting step is allowed to escape as water vapor
as part of the application procedure. In other words, the
claimed method implicitly requires that the wetting step must
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007