Appeal 2006-2263 Application 09/859,665 Claims are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the Specification during examination. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316, 75 USPQ2d at 1329. The Examiner determined that Hamilton’s granular mixture including chitosan and nits contacts at least the inner surface of the spunbond polypropylene pouch such that the chitosan is “on . . . at least a portion of a surface of polyolefin [i.e., polypropylene] . . . fibers forming said nonwoven web material” such that Appellants’ argued claim feature (1) is satisfied by Hamilton (Answer 7). We determine the Examiner is reasonable in his construction of claim 15 as including Hamilton’s disclosure wherein granular chitosan (i.e., gelling agent) is in contact with the inside of a non-woven polypropylene web material such that claim feature (1) is disclosed. The granular mixture of chitosan and nits would necessarily have to contact “at least a portion of a surface of polyolefin . . . fibers” (claim 15) constituting the nonwoven pouch encasing the chitosan and nit granular mixture. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Hamilton discloses Appellants’ claim feature (1). Regarding the second argued distinction, Hamilton discloses testing the samples using menstruating subjects (Hamilton, col. 45, ll. 50-60). Accordingly, claim feature (2), “contacting said at least one treatment chemistry with said menses,” is satisfied by Hamilton. Because Hamilton discloses both of Appellants’ argued claim features and for the reasons noted above, we affirm the Examiner’s § 102(e) rejection of argued claim 15 and non-argued claims 16-20 and 23-26 over Hamilton. 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013