Appeal 2007-1563
Application 10/462,067
The rejection as presented by the Examiner is as follows:
Claims 1-9, 11-44 and 46-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Hansen.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 47, the Examiner contends that
Chen inherently discloses the features of a “stabilized absorbent layer” as
defined by Appellants on pages 11-12 of the Specification (Answer 3-4).
Regarding independent claim 24, the Examiner contends that the claimed
topological features are inherently disclosed by Chen (Answer 5-6).
Appellants separately argue independent claims 1, 24, and 47, and
dependent claims 8, 26, 41, 48, 49, 51, and 52. Accordingly, non-argued
dependent claims 2-7, 11-23, and 46 which directly or ultimately depend on
claim 1, stand or fall with claim 1. Non-argued claim 9, which depends on
claim 8, stands or falls with claim 8. Non-argued claims 25, 27-40, and 42-
44 which directly or ultimately depend on claim 24, stand or fall with claim
24. Non-argued claim 50 which directly depends from independent claim
47, stands or falls with independent claim 47.
OPINION
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 1 AND 47
Appellants argue that the Examiner must use Appellants’ definition of
the claim phrase “stabilized absorbent layer” provided in the Specification at
paragraph [0073], to construe claims 1 and 47 (Br. 5-7). Appellants further
argue that the Examiner has not established that the tensile strength (i.e., “a
dry tensile strength of about 6 Newtons/50 mm or more and a wet tensile
strength of about 2 Newtons/50 mm or more”) recited in the definition of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013