Ex Parte Rydenstam

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 20, 2012

10904359 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 20, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte AGNETA RYDENSTAM
__________

Appeal 2010-006840
Application 10/904,359
Technology Center 3700
__________

Before TONI R. SCHEINER, DONALD E. ADAMS, and DEMETRA J. MILLS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SCHEINER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1-16, directed to an absorbent article. The Examiner has rejected the
claims on the grounds of anticipation and obviousness. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2010-006840
Application 10/904,359

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1-16 are pending and on appeal. Claim 1 is representative of
the subject matter on appeal:
1. An absorbent article having a longitudinal direction and a lateral
direction, wherein the longitudinal direction of the article is longer than the
lateral direction of the article, the article comprising:
a cover sheet;
a backsheet;
the absorbent article having a short side extending in the lateral
direction at each longitudinal end of the article and a long side extending in
the longitudinal direction at each lateral end of the article and the article
having a longitudinal end region at each of the longitudinal ends of the
article and a central portion extending between the two longitudinal end
regions;
a separate sheet with an extent in the longitudinal direction and an
extent in the lateral direction, the separate sheet being secured on a side of
the backsheet facing away from a user during use of the absorbent article,
wherein the separate sheet includes two longitudinal end portions and an
intermediate portion extending between the two longitudinal end portions,
the separate sheet extending from one longitudinal end region to the other
longitudinal end region, and the separate sheet includes two longitudinally
extending edges and two laterally extending edges, and each of the
longitudinal end portions is permanently or releasably secured via a securing
member at a respective end region in such a way that the intermediate
portion forms in combination with the backsheet a through-passage that
extends in the lateral direction and has an opening at each of the
longitudinally extending edges of the separate sheet; and
the separate sheet being equipped with wings along at least part of the
side edges of the separate sheet.
Claims 1-4, 9, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Van Iten (US 5,221,275, June 22, 1993).
Appeal 2010-006840
Application 10/904,359

3
Claims 5-7 and 13-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Van Iten.
Claims 8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Van Iten and Hammons (US 2003/0004484 A1,
January 2, 2003).
We reverse.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Figures 2a and 2b of the Specification, reproduced below,
depict an absorbent article that meets the limitations of claim 1:

Figures 2a and 2b of the Specification depict an absorbent article 1
that meets the limitations of claim 1.
Appeal 2010-006840
Application 10/904,359

4
[S]eparate sheet 4 extends from one end portion 19 and across
the central portion 20 to the other end portion 19. The short
end portions 7 of the separate sheet 4 are . . . secured by
securing members 11 to the respective end portion 19 in such a
way that the intermediate portion 8 forms a through-passage 22
against the backsheet 4 [sic, 12].
(Spec. ¶ 48.)
Since the separate sheet 4 is secured only via the short
end portions 7 at a respective end portion 19 of the article, the
intermediate portion 8 constitutes a unit which is not directly
coupled to the backsheet 12, and this means that the
intermediate portion 8 can move without the backsheet 12 being
forced to follow this movement.
(Id. at ¶ 50.)
2. Van Iten discloses an absorbent article, e.g., a feminine pad,
with a body-facing liquid permeable cover, an undergarment-facing liquid
impermeable baffle, an absorbent positioned between the cover and the
baffle (Van Iten, col. 3. ll. 43-51), and a clasp attached to the undergarment-
facing side of the article for “fastening the absorbent article to an adjacent
garment” (id. at col. 1, ll. 13-14) and maintaining the position of the
absorbent article relative to the undergarment (id. at col. 2, ll. 55-56).
3. Van Iten’s clasp “can consist of one or more relatively stiff
members each having at least two portions . . . joined together by a hinge”
(Van Iten, col. 4, ll. 23-26). The clasp “can be integrally formed with the
pad . . . or it can be attached to an exterior surface, for example to the
baffle . . . by an adhesive” (id. at col. 4, ll. 38-40).
4. Figure 14 of Van Iten, reproduced below, depicts clasp 142 on
the undergarment-facing surface 138 of absorbent article 140:
Appeal 2010-006840
Application 10/904,359

5

Figure 14 depicts clasp 142 on the undergarment facing surface 138 of
Van Iten’s absorbent article 140. As explained in the Specification,
[A]n undergarment facing surface 138 of an absorbent article
140 is shown having a clasp 142 attached thereto. The clasp
142 contains six portions 144, 145, 146, 147, 148 and 149
connected together by five hinges 150, 151, 152, 153 and 154.
Three reliefs 156, 157 and 158 are formed between each pair of
portions to give the clasp 142 added flexibility. Each of the two
outer hinges 150 and 154 incorporate a pair of elastic members
160 and 162, and 164 and 166, respectively, which tend to be
more durable and can bias the arcuate portions 144 and 149
towards their closed positions.
(Van Iten, col. 7, l. 59 - col. 8, l. 2.)
DISCUSSION
There are three rejections of the claims on the grounds of anticipation
and obviousness, but we will discuss them together because the dispositive
issue in each is the same. Specifically, the dispositive issue is whether the
evidence of record supports the Examiner’s finding that Van Iten discloses
Appeal 2010-006840
Application 10/904,359

6
an absorbent article with a separate sheet secured at its longitudinal end
portions to the backsheet of the absorbent device “in such a way that the
intermediate portion forms in combination with the backsheet a through-
passage that extends in the lateral direction and has an opening at each of the
longitudinally extending edges of the separate sheet” (claim 1).
The Examiner finds that the clasp 142 of Van Iten’s absorbent article
is a “separate sheet” with “two longitudinal end portions and an intermediate
portion extending between the two longitudinal end portions” (Ans. 4),
which is secured to the backsheet (i.e., the undergarment-facing surface) of
the absorbent article “via a securing member at a respective end region in
such a way that the intermediate portion . . . [and] the backsheet [form] a
through-passage that extends in the lateral direction and has an opening at
each of the longitudinally extending edges of the separate sheet” (id.). The
Examiner cites column 7, lines 59-61 and Figure 14 of Van Iten for the
proposition that Van Iten, “clearly state[s] that the clasp 142 is attached to an
undergarment facing surface 138 . . . and shows the points at which the clasp
is attached, i.e.[,] at the hinges 154” (Ans. 10).
Appellant contends that Van Iten does not teach that the hinges are
points of attachment (Reply Br. 2).1 Appellant contends that Van Iten
merely discloses that “the clasp can be integrally formed with the pad or
attached to an exterior surface by an adhesive” (App. Br. 18), and is
otherwise “silent as to how and where the clasp 142 is attached” (Reply Br.
2). Furthermore, Appellant contends that “two of the hinges 151 and 153
extend the entire longitudinal length of the clasp 142” (id.), therefore, if “the

1 References are to the Reply Brief submitted September 23, 2009.
Appeal 2010-006840
Application 10/904,359

7
clasp is attached at the hinges, there could not be any laterally extending
through passage . . . [as] [a]ny such passage would be blocked by the
attachment of the hinges” (id.).
Appellant’s arguments are persuasive. Van Iten discusses the
attachment of the clasp to the absorbent article in very general terms (FF3),
and the Examiner has not identified anything more specific in the reference,
much less anything that indicates that the clasp is attached at the hinges (see
FF4 for the portion of Van Iten relied on by the Examiner). Moreover, even
if we were to accept the Examiner’s unsupported assertion that the clasp is
attached to the backsheet via hinge 154 (and presumably similarly situated
hinge 150) the Examiner has not explained why the clasp would not also be
attached by hinges 151 and 153, which extend the entire longitudinal length
of the clasp, and would therefore preclude the through-passage required by
the claims on appeal.
Thus, we agree with Appellant that Van Iten neither teaches nor
suggests an absorbent article with a separate sheet secured to the backsheet
of the absorbent article “via [a] securing member at a respective end region
is such a way that the intermediate portion forms in combination with the
backsheet a through-passage that extends in the lateral direction and has an
opening at each of the longitudinally extending edges of the separate sheet”
(App. Br. 17).
Finally, Hammons does not make up for Van Iten’s lack of this
required feature.
Appeal 2010-006840
Application 10/904,359

8
SUMMARY
The rejection of claims 1-4, 9, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Van Iten is reversed.
The rejection of claims 5-7 and 13-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Van Iten is reversed.
The rejection of claims 8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Van Iten and Hammons is reversed.

REVERSED

clj