Appeal 2007-2409
Application 10/034,846
The standard under § 102 is one of strict identity. "Under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102, every limitation of a claim must identically appear in a single prior art
reference for it to anticipate the claim." Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d
1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1997). "Every element of the
claimed invention must be literally present, arranged as in the claim."
Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d
1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
We do not find that Clear teaches an absorbent core wherein the front
edge of the absorbent core is in a closer proximity to the front end of the
article than the back edge of the absorbent core is to the back end of the
article. Thus, the rejection of the claims for anticipation over Clear is
reversed.
Anticipation – Roe
Claims 83-89, 91-92, 100-102 and 106-111 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Roe. We select claim 107 as
representative of the rejected claims.
The Examiner finds that
Figures 1 and 3-4, col. 4, lines 43-50, col. 6, lines 20-26 and 29-
35, col. 22, Table 1, Sample X, col. 22, lines 56 et seq, col. 23,
lines 5-9, col. 25, lines 19-45, [show] i.e. surface area of core
28 is less than or equal to "about" 50% of the surface area of the
article, liner is 24, cover is 26. … With regard to the front edge
being closer to the front end than the back edge is to the back
end, see col. 4, lines 43-50 and Figures 1 and 3-4. The surface
area of the portion of the core which extends into the front half
of the article has a surface area which is less than about 30% of
the surface area of the front half of the article, see again col. 23,
lines 5-9. It is noted the article includes both the chassis 22 and
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013