Appeal 2007-0502
Application 10/318,567
composition before crosslinking). Further proof that Appellants intend their
claims to be limited to an absorbent composite and method of making the
absorbent composite comprising a crosslinkable (i.e., pre-crosslinked) binder
is evinced by Appellants’ argument that their claims require that the
“absorbent crosslinkable binder composition” be present in the absorbent
article in uncrosslinked form such that when the absorbent composite is
subsequently exposed to moisture a crosslinking reaction occurs that absorbs
a relatively large amount of water (Br. 4, Reply Br. 3).
Because the claim feature “an absorbent crosslinkable binder
composition” in combination with the substrate is not disclosed by Gander,
we reverse the Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection of independent claims 1 and 48
and dependent claims 2-3, 7, 9, 11, 12, 20-22, 25, and 49-53.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTIONS OVER GANDER AND GANDER IN
VIEW OF LEE
Because both of the § 103(a) rejections depend upon Gander for their
viability, we cannot sustain these rejections for the same reasons we
discussed above regarding the § 102(b) rejection over Gander. Namely,
Gander’s failure to disclose “an absorbent crosslinkable binder composition”
in combination with a substrate as claimed. Accordingly, the Examiner’s §
103(a) rejection of dependent claims 4-6 and independent claim 43 over
Gander, and the § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 19 and 44-47 over
Gander in view of Lee are reversed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013