Ex Parte Ueminami et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 29, 201211443708 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 29, 2012) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation