Appeal 2006-2014
Application 09/745,006
absorbent material. Tanzer does not state that the bodyside liner is in
contact with the user as Appellant contends.
Moreover, when discussing the envelope web that surrounds the
absorbent assembly 52, Appellant states that the terms “‘bodyside’ and
‘outerside’ in reference to the wrap layers identify to one skilled in the art
the orientation of the wrap layers within the absorbent article structure” (Br.
8). We note that Appellant uses similar language when referring to the
structure of absorbent article of her invention (i.e., “outer cover 21” and
“body-side liner 15” (Specification 10)). Therefore, Appellant’s statement
supports the Examiner’s construction of the term “body-side” in the claim
phrase “fluid impermeable body-side liner” as indicating the position of the
layer (i.e., liner) relative to other layers in the absorbent article, rather than
indicating that the “body-side liner” is in contact with the user.
Additionally, Appellant’s own disclosure undermines the argument
that the claim term “body-side liner” must be construed as the layer of
material in contact with the user (Br. 7). As Appellant’s Figures 1, 2, and 3,
show, the body-side liner 15 is underneath the flap sheet or pocket sheet 24.
The portion of the “body-side liner 15” that is underneath the flap sheet or
pocket sheet is nonetheless called a “body-side liner” by Appellant even
though it does not contact the user. Appellant’s showing in Figures 1, 2,
and 3 thus contradicts Appellant’s position.
For the foregoing reasons, we determine the Examiner’s construction
and definition of “fluid permeable body-side liner” is reasonable and
consistent with Appellant’s Specification. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316, 75
USPQ2d at 1329. Accordingly, we adopt the Examiner’s construction of
“fluid permeable body-side liner” indicated above as our own.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013