Appeal 2007-0724
Reexamination Control 90/006,775
Patent 6,428,526
1 In the instant case the end product is the packaged articles not
2 the articles prior to packaging and the claim is silent as to
3 whether the stemlike projections are engaged during packaging
4 in the same manner as they are prior to packaging. Therefore,
5 the end product of claim 1 requires at a minimum only stemlike
6 projections of each packaged article having the capability of
7 being releasably engaged with the respective absorbent article
8 to protect the hook material and provide a pant-like structure
9 before the respective article is packaged.[3]
10
11 The appellants argue that the language at issue imparts structural
12 characteristics and should be treated as a structural limitation not a process
13 limitation. Appeal Br. 7. Specifically, the appellants argue that the
14 language indicates that the stemlike projections are releasably engaged with
15 the absorbent article when the absorbent article is in the package. Appeal
16 Br. 5-6.
17 The appellants’ interpretation of the claim language at issue is
18 consistent with the specification. See, e.g., Patent 6,428,526, col. 8, line 64-
19 col. 9, line 9. Therefore, we interpret claim 1 as requiring a package of
20 disposable absorbent articles wherein each absorbent article has stemlike
21 projections releasably engaged with the absorbent article before the
22 absorbent article is packaged to provide a package of absorbent articles each
23 having a pant-like structure.
24 B. Rejection of claims 1-11 based on Dragoo, and by
25 incorporation, Buell and Nestegard
26
27 The examiner finds that Dragoo discloses a package of absorbent
28 articles. The examiner also finds that Buell and Nestegard disclose an
3 To the extent that the examiner’s position is that claim 1 is indefinite under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, this rejection is not before us on appeal.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013