Appeal 2007-1560
Application 10/680,968
between 0.5 and 5 N/cm. To compensate for these
deficiencies, the Office Action proposes that even if Coles
does not teach such an extensible layer, the reference of
Osborn does teach the use of an extensible layer in
combination with the stretchable elastic film, scrim, or other
elastic element 1 taught in Coles. (Br. 9-10).
Appellants contend that Coles clearly teaches that the
invention requires a stretchable elastic layer in combination with an
unelongatable layer to achieve the function and objects of the Coles
taught and claimed invention. Appellants further contend it would
have been “clearly contrary to the Coles reference to simply
substitute an extensible layer, as may be taught in Osborn, for the
unextensible layer 3 required by Coles. Further, even assuming such
a substitution could be properly made, which the applicants' assert
cannot under the doctrine of obviousness, it is unlikely that the
composite structure would function as required by Coles, namely,
resulting in a retracted composite having gathers on the exterior
surface” (Br. 11).
The issue presented is as follows:
Has with the Examiner reasonably determined that Coles,
alone or in combination with Osborn, would have led a person of
ordinary skill in the art to form an absorbent article comprising a
liner composite including an extendable fluid permeable liner
material and a non-tensioned elastic having a portion of the liner
composite that has a three-dimensional configuration and comprises
a retraction capability deferential of it least 10 %, within the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013