Appeal 2007-2825
Application 10/262,036
1 A lotion is present. Col. 9:40-41.
2 The Examiner found that Roe differs from the subject matter of P&G
3 claim 20 in that Roe does not describe the use of a plurality of stripes.
4 Examiner's Answer 3:5-6. P&G agrees. Appeal Brief 2, fifth full paragraph.
5 The Examiner also found that Roe describes a lotion identical to that
6 claimed by P&G. Examiner's Answer 5, last paragraph; Final Rejection 5,
7 last paragraph. See also the Examiner's citation to Osborn U.S. Patent
8 5,891,126, a patent owned by P&G and which, while not relied upon by the
9 Examiner, is said to describe the same lotion composition as Roe for use in a
10 sanitary napkin. Final Rejection 2, next-to-last paragraph. P&G does not
11 contest the fact that the claimed lotion is known for use in absorbent articles
12 and does not base its arguments for patentability on the composition of the
13 lotion.
14
15 Elder
16 Elder is owned by P&G.
17 It should be noted that a rather lengthy certificate of correction has
18 been issued with respect to Elder.
19 Elder reveals that absorbent articles such as diapers, incontinence
20 articles, catamenial devices, etc., are well known in the art. Col. 1:19-21.
21 According to Elder, typically disposable absorbent articles comprise a
22 liquid pervious topsheet that faces the wearer's body, a liquid impervious
23 backsheet that faces the wearer's clothing, an absorbent core disposed
24 between the liquid pervious topsheet and the backsheet. Col. 1:21-26.
25
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013