Appeal 2006-2813
Application 10/168,887
comprising first and second zones that are separated by a porous membrane
assembly wherein the second zone is connected to a suction device, and the
membrane assembly is capable of maintaining a pressure differential
between the two zones without permitting air to penetrate from the first to
the second zone. As appreciated by the Examiner, "Lawrence does not teach
the membrane material as having an actual surface area and a projected
surface area, actual surface area more than twice the projected surface area,
but less than 200 times" (page 9 of Answer, first sentence). However, we
fully concur with the Examiner that Blaney evidences the obviousness of
utilizing an absorbent article having an actual surface area greater than the
projected surface area for the purpose of enhancing the absorption capacity
of the material. While Blaney does not explicitly teach that the actual
surface area of the membrane material is at least two times the area of the
projected surface but not more than 200 times the area of the projected
surface, we agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious for one
of ordinary skill in the art to resort to routine experimentation to determine
the optimum actual surface areas of the membrane material, particularly
since Corbin teaches a membrane material having an actual surface area
within the claimed range.
Appellants maintain that modifying the membrane of Lawrence in
accordance with the teachings of Blaney would render the Lawrence
member unsatisfactory for its intended purpose because the melt blow or
spun bonded fibrous polymeric non-woven webs of Blaney would not permit
air to pass, and, also, Blaney teaches that the non-woven is necessarily
hydrophobic. However, we agree with the Examiner that these arguments
miss the thrust of the Examiner's rejection. As explained by the Examiner,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007