Ex Parte Molas et al - Page 11


                Appeal No.  2007-0752                                                   Page 11                 
                Application No.  09/957,109                                                                     
                deform to a W-shaped cross section in response to lateral pressure from the                     
                thighs of the wearer.  Hines, page 3.  While, as the examiner points out, Hines                 
                may teach a napkin that consists of a number of “lines of weakness” 30 and 34,                  
                one cannot escape the fact that these “lines of weakness” 30 and 34 are                         
                disclosed in Hines to cause the napkin to deform to a W-shaped cross section in                 
                response to lateral pressure from the thighs of the wearer, as illustrated in Hines,            
                figure 5 reproduced below.                                                                      







                       We do not find, and the examiner has not identified, a teaching in Hines of              
                a pantiliner that may be adjusted in size depending on panty size, by folding said              
                pantiliner along at least one embossed fold line to allow the periphery side areas              
                of the pantiliner to be positioned under a panty prior to, and while in use as                  
                required by appellants’ claimed invention.  Accordingly, Hines fails to make up for             
                the deficiencies in Unger.                                                                      
                       “In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial               
                burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.”  In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d               
                1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993), citation omitted.  The test                  
                of obviousness is “whether the teachings of the prior art, taken as a whole, would              
                have made obvious the claimed invention.”  In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986, 18                  
                USPQ2d 1885, 1888 (Fed. Cir. 1991).  For the foregoing reasons, it is our                       






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

Last modified: September 9, 2013