Appeal 2007-2409
Application 10/034,846
core relative to the back end of the article other than that the absorbent core
ends are certainly spaced inward from the front and back edges of the article.
(Br. 8.) Appellant argues that the
[o]nly evidence of record regarding the positions of the front
and back ends 52 of the article relative to the front and back
edges of the absorbent core 28 of the article of Clear et al. is
provided by Figures 1 and 2 thereof. In both embodiments the
front and back fit panels 38 are of equal length and the front
and back edges of the absorbent core are equidistant from the
respective front and back ends of the article.
(Br. 11.)
We agree with Appellant that upon careful review of Figures 1 and 2
of Clear, and Clear’s supporting specification, it reasonably appears that the
front and back edges of the absorbent core are equidistant from the
respective front and back ends of the article. While Clear does indicate that
the fit panel in the rear fit region may be 1:5 to 2 times the longitudinal
length of the fit panel in the front region (Clear, 13), what remains unclear is
whether when the length of the rear fit panel is increased, the longitudinal
center line (102 of Fig. 1) is similarly adjusted. We have no evidence of
record suggesting that the longitudinal center line or the core region of the
diaper is repositioned when the size of the rear fit panel is altered. The
Examiner did not provide any evidence of how the core would be placed
when the size of the rear panel is altered. Thus, there is no evidence that the
claimed arrangement of claim 107 would necessarily occur, following
Clear’s disclosure. Inherent anticipation requires that the claimed subject
matter “necessarily and inevitably” occur. See Schering Corp. v. Geneva
Pharmaceuticals, 339 F.3d 1373, 67 USPQ2d 1664 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013