Appeal 2007-0283
Application 09/849,594
“the use of a discontinuous bond pattern to create strong, leak-proof seams”
as claimed (id.).
Appellants contend since Bridges’ bond line permits tearing, it is
unlikely one of ordinary skill in the art “would modify the size, shape,
and/or spacing of the bonds . . . to render the tear line ‘leak-proof,’” arguing
the bond point are close together to permit tearing and sufficiently spaced
apart to retain residual strength to prevent premature such that Bridges
“teaches away from forming a leak-proof seam of closely-spaced bond
points” (Br. 5). Appellants contend adding more bond points “would likely
render the tear line unsatisfactory for its intended purpose” (id.) Appellants
contend Bridges does not disclose or suggest bonding together at least two
layers of liquid-impermeable material, arguing there is no suggestion the
disclosed inner and outer layers that are bonded together are both liquid-
impermeable, and such an inner layer would prevent liquid from reaching
the absorbent assembly (id.).
Appellants contend Kielpikowski discloses “bond patterns for
securing an elastic member within a containment flap,” and Fig. 4 thereof
illustrates at least three parallel rows of bond points in a pattern described as
minimizing the use of bond points in the flap, at column 10, lines 1-3,
wherein the bond points “may be spaced relatively far apart because it is not
entirely critical to prevent the elastic member from passing outside the
second pattern” of bonds 25, citing column 10, lines 20-30 (Br. 6).
Appellants contend the shown “overall bond pattern does not appear to be
leak-proof” and there is no suggestion the pattern is leak-proof in the
reference (id.).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013