Appeal 2007-1563
Application 10/462,067
“stabilized absorbent layer” is inherent in the absorbent core of Chen in view
of Hansen (Br. 7-8).
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and find them
unpersuasive for the reasons below.
Citing to In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977), the
Examiner determines that since Chen uses “like materials (i.e., an absorbent
layer comprising binder agent added to a mixture of wood pulp fluff and
SAP),” it is reasonable to presume that that the tensile strength properties are
inherent to Chen’s basesheets (i.e., a first three-dimensionally patterned
stabilized absorbent layer) (Answer 3 and 4). We agree.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially
identical, the USPTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art
products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of the
claimed product. Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433.
As an initial matter, claims 1 and 47 do not require that the “stabilized
absorbent” have the particularly argued tensile strengths. Rather, Appellants
define the claim phrase “stabilized absorbent” as an absorbent structure
having particular dry and wet tensile strengths (Specification 11-12). In
particular, the claim feature “stabilized absorbent” is disclosed as having “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” (Specification 12).
In correspondence to Appellants’ definition of “stabilized absorbent
layer,” Chen discloses making the basesheets 1 (i.e., a first three-
dimensionally patterned stabilized absorbent layer) from wood pulp fluff
fibers and wet strength agents (i.e., binders), which may include
superabsorbent particles (Chen, col. 3, ll. 25-30; col. 4, ll. 33-38; col. 6, ll.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013