Appeal 2006-1804
Application 09/825,609
sheet in Fujioka’s absorbent core regardless of the increased absorbing
capacity that might result from such a modification. While the skilled
artisan would have been interested in increasing the absorptive capacity of
the absorbent core, the combined teachings of Fujioka and Matsuda would
have led the skilled artisan away from utilizing the particular approach of
Matsuda in Fujioka’s pad.
We therefore conclude that the combined teachings of Fujioka and
Matsuda would not have suggested providing a delay layer in Fujioka’s
absorbent article to arrive at the claimed subject matter. We cannot sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 9, 12-14, and 18-22 as being
unpatentable over Fujioka in view of Matsuda.
The Examiner’s application of Poulsen does not make up for the
deficiency of the combination of Fujioka and Matsuda discussed above. We
thus cannot sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 11 as being unpatentable
over Fujioka in view of Matsuda and Poulsen.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013