Appeal 2007-1560
Application 10/680,968
disputed claim language covers disposable absorbent articles that
comprise a liner composite material. The claimed invention and the
Specification include references to specific elements of the drawings
that correspond to various aspects of the claimed invention. The
Specification includes lists of representative materials suitable for
use in the disposable absorbent articles (see Specification generally).
There is nothing inherently wrong with defining some part of an
invention in functional terms or based upon specified properties.
The identification of properties and functional language does not, in
and of itself, render a claim improper. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d
210, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 229 (CCPA 1971). Thus, we determine
that the claims reasonably apprise those of ordinary skill in the art of
their scope. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s § 112, second
paragraph, rejection of claims number 1-31 as indefinite.
III. Claims number 1-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Coles alone or in view of Osborn.1
The Examiner contends that Coles discloses an absorbent
article which comprises a topsheet, a back sheet, and an absorbent
core. The topsheet is permeable. The absorbent article has an
elastic composite which can be attached to either the topsheet or the
backsheet. Coles teaches forming an elastic composite which can be
applied to various regions of the absorbent article where elasticity is
desired. The elastic composite is formed by attaching the elastic in a
1 For this ground of rejection, Appellants have grouped their
arguments together. We select claim 1 as representative of the
rejected claims and will limit our discussion thereto.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013