Ex Parte Ueminami et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 29, 2012

11443708 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 29, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ATSUSHI UEMINAMI and MAKI HASEGAWA
____________

Appeal 2010-004962
Application 11/443,708
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before LINDA E. HORNER, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
JOHN W. MORRISON, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-004962
Application 11/443,708

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-2 and 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kinoshita (US 2004/0243082 A1, published Dec. 2, 2004)
and Miyama (US 7,312,372 B2, issued Dec. 25, 2007).
Claims 3 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kinoshita, Miyama, and Chen (US 6,764,477 B1, issued
Jul. 20, 2004).

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 14 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 14 is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. Claim 14, with emphasis added,
recites:
14. An absorbent article having a front end region,
a rear end region, a central region disposed
between the front and rear end regions, a
transverse axis and a longitudinal axis, the
absorbent article, comprising:
a topsheet;
a backsheet;
an absorbent core disposed between the
topsheet and the backsheet; and
a reinforcing structure disposed within the
central region, the reinforcing structure including
Appeal 2010-004962
Application 11/443,708

3
at least one traverse reinforcing element which is
formed by at least two traverse channels;
wherein the at least two channels are
disposed generally parallel to the transverse axis
with a reinforcement distance such that the at least
one traverse reinforcing element has a compressive
modulus in the range of about 8 psi to about 30 psi
(in the range of about 55.2 kPa to about 206.8
kPa).

OPINION
Claims 1 and 14 both call for at least one traverse reinforcing element
to be formed by two traverse channels. Br., Claims Appendix. The
Examiner’s rejections rest on a finding that Kinoshita’s grooves 12 and 14
and/or grooves 13 and 16, correspond to both the claimed “traverse
reinforcing element(s)” and “two traverse channels”. Ans. 7; see also Ans.
3. The Appellants contend that the “traverse reinforcing element, as
claimed, . . . [must be] located between the grooves.” Br. 3. As such, the
Examiner and the Appellants have construed the term “formed by” in a
distinctly different manner.
Based on the Examiner’s application of the Kinoshita’s disclosure to
claims 1 and 14 and the Appellants’ contention, it is necessary to decide
whether the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification as
viewed by one of ordinary skill in the art of “the reinforcing structure
including a pair of traverse reinforcing elements each of which is formed by
two traverse channels” (italics added) as recited in claim 1 and “the
reinforcing structure including at least one traverse reinforcing element
which is formed by at least two traverse channels” (italics added) as recited
in claim 14 includes a construction where the claimed transverse reinforcing
Appeal 2010-004962
Application 11/443,708

4
element(s) and the claimed two traverse channels can be the same structure.
In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(The scope of claims in a patent application is determined by giving claims
“their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification”
and “in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art.”)
We understand the term formed by to denote that the claimed traverse
reinforcing element and the claimed two traverse channels are separate
structures where the two traverse channels delineate the boundaries of the
claimed traverse reinforcing element. See Br. 3. This construction is
consistent with the Specification. Spec. passim. For example, Figure 1
depicts two pairs of channels 62 and 64 which form a pair of traverse
reinforcing elements 71. Spec. 8 (“The reinforcing structure 70 shown in
FIG. 1 includes a pair of traverse reinforcing elements 71 formed by the four
traverse channels 62 and 64.”); see also Spec. 7, 11 (explicitly defining
terms “reinforcement element”, “reinforcement distance”, “distance”, and
“channel”).
The Examiner’s application of Kinoshita to the claims rests on a
construction of the term “formed by” that is not within the broadest
reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification. Consequently, the
Examiner’s finding that Kinoshita’s grooves 12, 14 and/or 13, 16 correspond
to both the claimed “traverse reinforcing element(s)” and the claimed “two
traverse channels” is incorrect.
Thus, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-2 and 4-
13 as unpatentable over Kinoshita and Miyama; and claims 3 and 14-15 as
unpatentable over Kinoshita, Miyama, and Chen.
Appeal 2010-004962
Application 11/443,708

5
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision to reject: claims 1-2 and 4-13
as unpatentable over Kinoshita and Miyama; and claims 3 and 14-15 as
unpatentable over Kinoshita, Miyama, and Chen.

REVERSED

Klh