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.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013