Appeal 2007-0714
Application 10/651,354
substrate, i.e., the diaper, when the limitations of claim 1 are compared to
the teachings of the prior art, i.e., Timmons.
The absorbent article of claim 1 requires a permanent character
graphic and an active object graphic, wherein the active graphic fades or
appears when exposed to urine (Specification 2-3). Timmons teaches an
absorbent article having a wetness indicator, such that when the article is dry
it shows a decorative or printed pattern, but when the diaper is wet the
pattern or color quickly fades (col. 1, ll. 42-46). Moreover, according to
Timmons, the coloring agent may be applied in an “unlimited variety of
decorative patterns,” with a portion of the pattern consisting of a permanent
coloring agent and a portion consisting of a water-dispersible coloring agent
(col. 3, ll. 57-61).
The absorbent article of claim 1 and that taught by Timmons have the
same relationship between the printed matter and the substrate. Part of the
printed matter, the character graphic of claim 1, and the permanent coloring
agent of Timmons, remains visible at all times. The other part of the printed
matter, the active graphic of claim 1, and the water dispersible coloring
agent of Timmons, indicates when the absorbent article, i.e., a diaper, has
been exposed to urine. Thus, the character graphic and the active graphic of
claim 1, i.e., the printed matter, do not have a new and unobvious
relationship with the substrate, i.e., the diaper, as the printed matter in
Timmons, and the printed matter of claim 1 both serve the function of
indicating when the diaper has been wet.
In addition, claims 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over the combination of Timmons and Howell; claim 11
stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Timmons;
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013