Ex Parte Miyamoto

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 20, 2008

10325153 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 20, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte KOUICHI MIYAMOTO
__________

Appeal 2008-1472
Application 10/325,153
Technology Center 3700
__________

Decided: June 20, 2008
__________

Before TONI R. SCHEINER, ERIC GRIMES, and JEFFREY N.
FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

GRIMES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to a diaper.
The Examiner has rejected the claims as anticipated and obvious. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
Appeal 2008-1472
Application 10/325,153

BACKGROUND
“Disposable absorbent articles provided with an elasticized outer leg
cuff are well known. … These elasticized outer leg cuffs provide a gasket
cuffing action about the legs of the wearer to maintain a seal about the leg
and minimize gapping. A number of attempts have been made to further
improve an elasticized outer leg cuff to minimize leakage.” (Specification 1.)
The Specification discloses a disposable absorbent article that
comprises, among other things, “an elasticized outer leg cuff, and a barrier
leg cuff,” with the elasticized outer leg cuff having “a base and a gasket cuff
supported by the base at a joint of the base to the gasket cuff” (id. at 3). The
“gasket cuff . . . has an inner cuff extending laterally inwardly from the joint
and an outer cuff extending laterally outwardly from the joint” and a “barrier
leg cuff is disposed inboard of the gasketing cuff,” such that a pocket is
formed by a combination of the inner cuff, the base, and the barrier leg cuff
(id.).
Figure 2 of the application is reproduced below:

2
Appeal 2008-1472
Application 10/325,153

Figure 2 is said to show a cross-sectional view of one embodiment of
the invention (id.). The Specification describes some of the elements shown
in Figure 2 as follows:
The elasticized outer leg cuff 42 has a base 68 and a gasket cuff
70 supported by the base 68 at a joint 72 of the base 68 to the
gasket cuff 70. The gasket cuff 70 is provided with an elastic
material 46 and has an inner cuff 100 extending laterally
inwardly from the joint 72 and an outer cuff 102 extending
laterally outwardly from the joint 72. The chassis 54 . . . also
may comprise barrier leg cuffs 52.
(Id. at 6.)
DISCUSSION
1. CLAIMS
Claims 1-10 are pending and on appeal. Claim 1 is representative and
reads as follows:
Claim 1: A disposable absorbent article comprising:
a liquid pervious topsheet,
a liquid impervious backsheet,
an absorbent core disposed therebetween,
an elasticized outer leg cuff disposed adjacent to a longitudinal side
edge of the absorbent article, the elasticized outer leg cuff having a base and
a gasket cuff supported by the base at a joint of the base to the gasket cuff,
the gasket cuff being provided with elasticity and having an inner cuff
extending laterally inwardly from the joint and an outer cuff extending
laterally outwardly from the joint, and
a barrier leg cuff having a proximal edge and a distal edge, the barrier
leg cuff disposed inboard of the gasketing cuff, and the distal edge of the
barrier leg cuff being spaced away from the top surface of the topsheet to
form a pocket by a combination of the inner cuff, the base and the barrier leg
cuff.

3
Appeal 2008-1472
Application 10/325,153

2. ANTICIPATION
Claims 1-3, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Foreman.1
The Examiner finds that Foreman discloses a disposable diaper that
comprises, among other elements,
T-shaped outer gasketing leg cuffs 56 with elastics 60 disposed
adjacent to the side edge, the outer gasketing leg cuffs
supported by the base at a joint, an inner and outer cuff
component extending laterally inward and laterally outward
from the joint; and first barrier cuffs/secondary leakage means
62 having a proximal edge 64 and distal edge 66, the barrier
cuff 62 disposed inboard of gasket cuffs 56, the distal edge 66
spaced away from the liquid-receiving surface 50 to form a
pocket to contain and hold body exudates.
(Answer 3.) The Examiner also finds that, when “base” and “joint” are
given their broadest reasonable interpretation, “Foreman discloses an
elasticized outer gasket cuff 56 that is supported by a base joint 88 (e.g.:
where the base/lowest edge is connected to the gasket cuff)” (id. at 7).
The Examiner has provided an annotated version of Foreman’s Figure
2, reproduced below, to illustrate her interpretation of the reference:

1 Foreman, US 4,738,677, Apr. 19, 1988.
4
Appeal 2008-1472
Application 10/325,153

The figure shows Foreman’s Figure 2 with the elements of instant
claim 1 indicated.
Appellant argues, among other things, that the Foreman does not teach
or suggest “a gasket cuff … having an inner cuff extending laterally
inwardly from the joint” (Appeal Br. 4).
The Examiner has provided an annotated version of a portion of the
Foreman’s Figure 2 to illustrate his interpretation of the reference (Answer
5), which is provided below:
5
Appeal 2008-1472
Application 10/325,153

The figure shows part of Foreman’s Figure 2 that the Examiner has
annotated to indicate aspects of the Foreman diaper gasket cuff as
corresponding to the inner cuff of the gasket cuff recited in instant claim 1.
The Examiner reasons that Figure 2 of Foreman “discloses [that] at least a
portion (delineated by the circle in annotated Figure 2 …) of the inner cuff
extends laterally inward from the joint” (id. at 7). The Examiner also finds
the “first fold (delineated by a dashed arrow pointing to the right in
annotated Figure 2 above) to be the inner cuff” (id. at 7-8).
We agree with Appellant that Foreman does not support a prima facie
case of anticipation for claim 1. In particular, we agree that the Examiner
has not adequately explained how the reference shows a gasket cuff having
an “inner cuff extending laterally inwardly from the joint” of the base to the
gasket cuff.
Foreman discloses a disposable absorbent article comprising “a first
barrier cuff disposed adjacent each longitudinal edge of the absorbent
article” (Foreman, abstract). Foreman also discloses, with reference to Fig.
2 as shown partially above, a preferred diaper construction with a “first
6
Appeal 2008-1472
Application 10/325,153

barrier cuff 62 … formed by affixing portions of a separate first barrier cuff
member to the backsheet 42 adjacent the longitudinal edge 30 of the diaper
20 with attachment means 88” (id. at col. 4, ll. 34-37). Foreman also
discloses that the “elastically contractible gasketing cuff 56 is . . . formed by
the side flap 58 and the flap elastic members 60” (id. at col. 4, ll. 45-47).
“[A]s an initial matter, the PTO applies to the verbiage of the
proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their
ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or
otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the
applicant’s specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). Thus, as an initial matter, we interpret the meaning of the term
“extends laterally inwardly” in claim 1.
The claim provides that the inner cuff extends laterally inwardly from
the joint between the base and the gasket cuff. The Specification provides
that the “terms ‘transverse’ or ‘lateral’ … are interchangeable, and refer to a
line, axis or direction which lies within the plane of the absorbent article that
is generally perpendicular to the longitudinal direction” (Spec. at 5, ll. 10-
13). The instant Specification describes Figure 2 (shown at page 2 above) as
showing that the “gasket cuff 70 has an inner cuff 100 extending laterally
inwardly from the joint 72” (Spec. at 11, ll. 8-10). Thus, given the
description in the Specification we interpret the phrase “extends laterally
inwardly” in claim 1 to refer to a direction that is in the plane of the main
body of the diaper and extends, from the joint between the base and the
7
Appeal 2008-1472
Application 10/325,153

gasket cuff, generally perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the
diaper in a direction toward the body of the diaper.
In view of this interpretation of the term “inner cuff extending
laterally inwardly,” it is clear that the Foreman feature that the Examiner has
identified as corresponding to the instantly claimed inner cuff would not
extend laterally inwardly from the joint, as required by claim 1, because the
identified element is located entirely outwardly from the joint, relative to the
body of the diaper, and does not extend toward the main body of the diaper.
The Examiner has identified a second joint 88 in his (second)
annotated version of Foreman’s Figure 2, and it is true that the element he
identifies as the inner cuff of Foreman’s diaper extends inwardly from there.
That second joint 88 (the one closest to element 30), however, is not the
joint between the base and the gasket cuff, from which claim 1 requires the
inner cuff to extend laterally. Thus, we find that Foreman does not disclose
or suggest the claim element of an “inner cuff extending laterally inwardly”
from the joint between the base and the gasket cuff. Therefore, Foreman
does not anticipate claim 1 or claims that depend from claim 1.
3. OBVIOUSNESS
Claims 4-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
Foreman. The Examiner relies on Foreman as discussed above, and
concludes that the limitations of claims 4-8 would have been obvious to
those of ordinary skill in the art (Answer 6-7).
As discussed above, however, we conclude that the Examiner has not
adequately explained how the reference shows the claim limitation of a
gasket cuff having an “inner cuff extending laterally inwardly from the
8
Appeal 2008-1472
Application 10/325,153

joint” of the base to the gasket cuff, and the Examiner has not explained why
Foreman would have made such a limitation obvious.
SUMMARY
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not made out a prima
facie case of anticipation or obviousness based on the cited reference, and
we therefore reverse the rejection of claims 1-3 and 9-10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) and the rejection of claims 4-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

REVERSED

cdc
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DIVISION - WEST BLDG.
WINTON HILL BUSINESS CENTER - BOX 412
6250 CENTER HILL AVENUE
CINCINNATI OH 45224
9