Appeal 2007-0042
Application 09/746,880
stand withdrawn from consideration as directed to a non-elected invention
(Br. 1; Final Office Action dated Sep. 25, 2002, page 1). We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6.
According to Appellants, the invention is directed to an absorbent
article including an outer cover, a liquid permeable bodyside liner that
defines a bodyfacing surface and is connected in superposed relation to the
outer cover, and an absorbent body located between the bodyside liner and
the outer cover (Br. 2). The bodyfacing surface of the liner contains a lotion
composition which includes an emollient, a viscosity enhancer, and a
decoupling polymer (id.).
Appellants state that the “rejected claims do not stand or fall together”
(Br. 6). However, Appellants provide no specific, substantive reasons for
the separate patentability of the Group II claims (“for the same reasons as
those stated above”) (Br. 9). Therefore, we select claim 1 from the Group I
claims and limit our consideration to this claim as representative of all the
claims in the sole ground of rejection. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.192(c)(7)(8)(2003),
in effect as of the filing date of the Brief; and In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d
1379, 1383, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Representative
independent claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. An absorbent article comprising:
(a) an outer cover;
(b) a liquid permeable bodyside liner that defines a bodyfacing surface
and that is connected in superposed relation to the outer cover;
(c) an absorbent body that is located between the bodyside liner and
the outer cover; and
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013