Appeal No. 1998-2262 Application 08/745,303 the presence of the indentation 43 in the crotch area. Moreover, the examiner has failed to provide any factual support for the conclusion (see page 7 in the answer) that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Southwell’s “barrier” 51, which is disclosed as being highly absorbent, with a limited capacity for absorbing no more than about 6 grams of liquidous exudates. As disclosed (see specification page 6), this limited absorption capacity contributes to a non-bulky and flexible fit for the claimed panty. For these reasons, the prior art applied in the manner proposed by the examiner would not have suggested the subject matter recited in independent claim 55. Hence, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 55, or of claims 56 through 61 and 63 which depend therefrom, as being unpatentable over Southwell in view of Suzuki, Tanzer and Igaue, or the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 62, which depends from claim 55, as being unpatentable over Southwell in view of Suzuki, Tanzer, Igaue and Kitaoka. 8Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007