Appeal 2007-0283
Application 09/849,594
the reference do not perforate the layers, resulting in a leak-proof seam
desirable in the diaper and training pants arts, in which the spacing between
bond points is the same as claimed (id.; see also 5). The Examiner contends
Appellants have not shown bond strength equates to leakage prevention and
the claims do not recite a particular bond strength (id. 5). The Examiner
contends the layers bonded in Bridges are liquid-impermeable as liquid-
impermeable polymeric films may be employed as the layers, and Fig. 6A
shows top and bottom layers 46,48 bonded to each other (id. 5-6).
The Examiner contends column 10, lines 20-30, of Kielpikowski cited
by Appellants pertains to Fig. 3, while it is Fig. 4 which is relied on (Answer
6). The Examiner contends Kielpikowski discloses the bond pattern to be
strong, soft and flexible, and one of ordinary skill would have used the bond
pattern of Kielpikowski as the bond pattern in Bridges for a strong seam
which can still be torn (id.). The Examiner contends Kielpikowski forms
containment flaps which prevent leaks and thus “relates to forming leak
proof seals” (id.).
The Examiner contends Appellants have “not qualified ‘along’” in the
claim language “along an edge” and thus, the claims “do not require the
bond be located directly at the seam portion, but merely recite ‘along’ the
edge” (Answer 7). The Examiner contends Bridges’ Fig. 1 shows the tear
lines 29 located at the edges of the films at either side of the front panel
“along, i.e., in a line and adjacent to the edge” (id.). The Examiner contends
Kielpikowski teaches bonding the containment flap to an absorbent article
(id.).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013