Appeal 2006-2263
Application 09/859,665
product, is a water-soluble gelling agent. Accordingly, the “water-soluble”
feature of the gelling agents of claims 1 and 32 is not disclosed by Blaney.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s § 102(e) rejection over
Blaney of independent claims 1 and 32 and dependent claims 2-4, 6, 8-12,
14, 33, 34, 36-41, and 44.
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) REJECTION OVER HAMILTON
Appellants argue that Hamilton fails to disclose the following two
features of claim 15: (1) “dispersing at least one treatment chemistry
selected from the group consisting of water-soluble gelling agents which
crosslink protein, thickening agents, plasma precipitators, and combinations
thereof on at least one of at least a portion of a surface of a polyolefin or
pulp fibers forming said nonwoven web material and within at least a
portion of the interstices of said nonwoven web material” and (2)
“contacting said at least one treatment chemistry with said menses.”
We begin our analysis of claim 15 by construing the claim language “.
. . at least one of at least . . . and . . .” as used in the claim phrase “dispersing
. . . water-soluble gelling agents which crosslink protein . . . on at least one
of at least a portion of a surface of polyolefin or pulp fibers forming said
nonwoven web material and within at least a portion of the interstices of said
nonwoven web material.” We look to Appellants’ Specification for
guidance in construing the claim phrase. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Appellants disclose
that the thickening or gelling agents may be incorporated into an absorbent
article in “a variety of ways” (Specification 33:8-10). Appellants’ “variety
of ways” may include mixing the gelling agents at a prescribed
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013