Ex Parte Sorebo et al - Page 5




           more than one feminine hygiene product into a single package to maintain the productsin       
           a hygienic condition.”  (Appellant’s Brief, p. 10).                                      
                 With regard to the deficiency of the prior art, the appellants contend that Jones  
           lacks any disclosure or suggestion for placing a plurality of feminine hygiene pads in the        
           main container (12).   Rather, Jones discloses a container of disposal bags.  (Appellant’s      
           Brief,pp. 7-8).   The appellants contend that Burrow fails to cure the deficiency of Jones,  
           becau se Burrow discloses only that a single package can be used to package a new pad    
           and then used to wrap the used pad for disposal.  The appellants contend that Burrow     
           fails to teach or suggest storing a plurality of pads in a single package in a hygienic  
           condition.  (Appellant’s Brief, p. 8).  The appellants further contendthat May fails to cure     
           the deficiency of Jones and Burrow and that the examiner merely relied on May for its    
           teaching of a slide closure.  (Appellant’s Brief, p. 8).                                 
                 In response to the appellants’ arguments, the examiner cites to col. 1, lines 23-30         
           of Burrow, which teaches that it is advantageous to individually package disposable      
           feminine hygiene articles by wrapping a single cover sheet around the article and sealing
           it to itself such that the user can re-use the package for disposal by inserting a used  
           version of the article inside the cover sheet, wrapping it closed, and re-sealing it.  The
           examiner contends that this teaching of Burrow provides a suggestion to use the          
           disposable containers (20) of Jones to store new pads prior to use, in addition to using the      
           containers (20) for disposal of used pads to eliminate the need for separate individual  
           packages and to economize material.  (Examiner’s Answer, pp. 11-12).                     
                 We agree with the examiner’s position.                                             
                 To determine whether a prima facie case of obviousness has been established, we    
           were guided by the factors set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966),       
           viz., (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the prior art






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007