Appeal 2007-1560
Application 10/680,968
any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.’”); In re
Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 1406-407, 160 USPQ 809, 811-12
(CCPA 1969) (“[I]t is proper to take into account not only specific
teachings of the references but also the inferences which one skilled
in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom . . .”).
The analysis supporting obviousness, however, should be made
explicit and should “identify a reason that would have prompted a
person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements” in the
manner claimed. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1731, 82 USPQ2d at 1389.
The Examiner has found that Coles describes an absorbent
article that comprises all of the elements of the present invention.
The Examiner recognized that Coles did not expressly describe the
retraction capability differential of at least 10% as specified in the
claimed invention (Answer 8-9). However, the Examiner properly
asserted that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
in the art to have employed an extendable topsheet or backsheet in
the absorbent article of Coles (Answer 9). The Examiner cited the
Osborn reference for describing extendable materials suitable for
formation of the topsheet and/or backsheet of an absorbent article
(Answer 9). Coles discloses the object of the invention is to provide
an absorbent article by which stretchability can easily be provided in
selected areas and in a selected direction and in which the degree of
extendability can easily be controlled (col. 2, l. 54-col. 3, l. 1). A
person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the proper
conditions for adding elastically extendable layers to composite
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013