|Vague and broad, who can object to that?|
In this opposition appeal, the opponent tried to raise insufficient disclosure objections (Art. 83 EPC) based on broad or vague terms in the granted patent claim. Below are the relevant portions of the main claim.
A sanitary napkin adapted to be worn in a crotch portion of an undergarment, said sanitary napkin having opposed longitudinally extending side edges and a longitudinal axis and comprising:
b) an absorbent system under said cover layer, said absorbent system having an absorbent width of at least 64 mm;
f) said absorbent system including at least a pair of preferential bending zones that extend along said longitudinal axis and are adjacent to respective side edges of the sanitary napkin, said preferential bending zones register with respective linear, longitudinally extending adhesive zones, this construction allowing said sanitary napkin to fold at said preferential bending zone in response to lateral compression applied to said napkin and permitting said napkin to acquire a three-dimensional deformation profile,
Arguing insufficiency without experimental data is always hard. This attempt also failed, as the board considered the potential problems in the claim to fall under clarity, which is not a ground for opposition.