Appeal 2007-1563
Application 10/462,067
We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and are unpersuaded
for the reasons below.
As the Examiner indicated, Chen discloses at column 6, lines 50-60
two embodiments for the absorbent core (i.e., second absorbent layer): (1)
densified fluff pulp or an air laid cellulosic web, or (2) an air laid web
stabilized with thermosetting materials or wet strength resin (Answer 11).
Chen also discloses that the various layers of the absorbent core 5 may be
manufactured using “air-laying by varying the composition of the fibers and
additives imparted to the web” (Chen, col. 3, ll. 50-55). Chen further
discloses that superabsorbent particles may be added differentially to at least
one layer of the web (Chen, col. 4, ll. 13-16).
From the above disclosures, we agree with the Examiner that one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand Chen to disclose using an
unstabilized absorbent core (i.e., unstabilized second absorbent layer), albeit
a non-preferred embodiment. All of the disclosures in a reference must be
evaluated for what they fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Boe,
355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966). Accordingly, we are
unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument that Chen fails to disclose an
unstabilized second absorbent layer comprised of fluff fibers and
superabsorbent particles.
Regarding Appellants’ motivation argument, Chen discloses a
densified absorbent material 51 that “[p]referably . . . is stabilized. . . .”
(Chen, col. 38, ll. 35-37). We understand this disclosure to indicate that the
“densified absorbent material” may be unstabilized, however, it is preferably
stabilized. Therefore, Chen discloses a densified, unstabilized absorbent
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013