Appeal No. 2005-2540
Application No. 10/026,629
REJECTION (3)
In this rejection, the examiner relies upon both Zafiroglu
and Goldman to reject most of appellants’ article claims. This
rejection fails essentially for the same reasons that the article
claims were found to be patentably distinct from Goldman,2
namely, Goldman does not teach or suggest that the amount of
enclosed polymer particles should be “in excess,” as required in
appellants’ article claims.
Neither has the examiner shown that Zafiroglu teaches or
suggests this feature. Thus, we are compelled to reverse the
subject rejection.
Additionally, while Goldman does disclose hydrogel-forming
polymer particles which appear to have a cross-linked core/shell
structure as in appellants’ claims,3 in our opinion Goldman is
not properly combinable with Zafiroglu since the articles
respectively disclosed in each reference serve fundamentally
different purposes. The absorbent article of Goldman is applied
to the body in a dry state for the purpose of absorbing body
2See the discussion, supra, in connection with rejection
(1).
3See the discussion, supra, in connection with rejection
(1).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007