Appeal No. 2006-2539 Page 7
Application No. 10/421,661
that materials of sufficient modulus for use as backsheets demonstrate a tensile
(Young’s) modulus in the machine direction of manufacture of at least about 6.895 x108
dynes/cm2 and below about 6.895 x109 dynes/cm2 at room temperature.” Column 35,
lines 6-8 and 45-49 (emphases added).
The examiner’s rejection, however, relies on LaVon’s fibrous substrate as the
“structural layer (A)” recited in the claims. See the Examiner’s Answer, page 3. The
backsheet discussed by Wnuk would correspond to LaVon’s film layer (12), not the
fibrous substrate (14 or 16). See LaVon, column 5, lines 4-6: “The composite sheet 10
is comprised of a fibrous substrate 14 to which a moisture vapor permeable and
substantially liquid impermeable film 12 is adhered.” Thus, although Wnuk teaches that
the backsheet of a disposable diaper should have a high tensile strength, it does not
teach that a material having a high tensile strength (and, according to the examiner, a
proportionally high flex modulus) is appropriate as the fibrous substrate in a disposable
diaper. Wnuk does not support the examiner’s position.
In summary, the examiner has not adequately shown that LaVon discloses a
process that includes a step of applying molten or thermoplastic polyurethane to a rigid
polymer structure, as that term is defined in the specification. We therefore reverse the
rejection for anticipation.
The examiner also rejected several claims as obvious in view of LaVon, alone or
in combination with other prior art references, as follows:
• claim 3, based on LaVon and Marsan3 (Examiner’s Answer, page 5);
3 Marsan et al., U.S. Patent 4,392,862, issued July 12, 1983
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007