Appeal 2007-0876
Application 10/057,346
protrude completely through the surface as taught in Applicant’s claim” (Br.
8).
We are not persuaded by this argument. Claim 1 recites “an
intermediate planar shaped absorbent member having a plurality of apertures
formed therein coupled to the upper planar shaped absorbent member.” This
claim language is most reasonably interpreted to mean that the intermediate
member, which has apertures in it, is coupled to the upper member. This
interpretation is consistent with the Specification, which states that “[t]he
intermediate member is aligned with and coupled to the upper planar
member . . .” (Specification 2). Thus, we interpret claim 1 as not requiring
the apertures to extend to any surface.
Also, McAtee actually states that the “apertures need not protrude
completely through to the surface of the substrate which is opposite to the
cleansing surface” (McAtee, col. 6, ll. 52-54). Thus, contrary to Appellant’s
argument, non-protruding apertures are merely an option for McAtee’s
multi-layer embodiments, not a requirement.
Appellant argues that claims 2 and 3 are distinguishable from McAtee
because there is no teaching or suggestion of including a thin one ply paper
absorbent material in the upper planar member (claim 2), or the intermediate
planar member (claim 3) (Br. 8-9). Appellant makes the same argument
with respect to claims 8 and 9 (id. at 11).
We do not agree. McAtee states that the layers comprising the
personal cleansing articles may be composed of “commercially available
paper layers” (McAtee, col. 5, l. 67 through col. 6, l. 1). We therefore agree
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013