Appeal 2007-1563
Application 10/462,067
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and find them
unpersuasive for the reasons below.
Appellants disclose that the surface feature density (i.e., the number of
bumps or protrusions on the first three-dimensionally patterned stabilized
absorbent layer per unit area) is preferably “at least 0.1 features per square
centimeter” (Specification ¶ [00106]). Appellants further disclose that the
height of the surface features may be at least 1 mm (Specification
¶ [00104]). Appellants further define “vertical area” as:
that portion of the surface area of the upper surface 241 of the first
three dimensionally patterned stabilized absorbent layer 24 that is
oriented generally in the thickness or z-direction . . . (Specification
¶ [00124]).
Appellants also define “projected area” as:
a flat area (in the horizontal plane) that would be covered by the first
three dimensionally patterned stabilized absorbent layer 24 if the first
three dimensionally patterned stabilized absorbent layer were laid on a
flat surface. (Specification ¶ [00124]).
Chen discloses that the basesheet (i.e., first three-dimensionally
patterned stabilized absorbent layer 24) has about 5 to about 300 protrusions
(i.e., surface features) per square inch (i.e., .77 to 46.5 protrusions per square
cm) (Chen, col. 31, ll. 8-10). Chen further discloses that the thickness of the
basesheet (i.e., a first three-dimensionally patterned stabilized absorbent
layer) is most preferably between 0.4 to 1.2 mm (Chen, col. 31, ll. 25-26).
Chen also discloses, as the Examiner indicated, that the protrusions may be
formed by “wet molding” or “embossing” (i.e., molding) (Chen, col. 3, ll.
41-45).
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially
identical, the USPTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013