Appeal No. 98-1945
Application 08/655,736
In particular, we appreciate the Jones disclosure of an
adhesively secured periodic event recorder that is intended to
be associated with, related to, or nearby the site of
performance of a desired task or event (column 1, lines 58
through 68). However, as we see it, at best, of the
collective evidence of obviousness before us, the Bossak and
Thompson patents would have been fairly suggestive of the
application of either of the respective deodorant retaining
device and disc features for a tampon (each with their
additional reminder function) to the tampon applicator and
package arrangement of Stump (Fig. 5). This modification, of
course, does not yield appellant’s invention.
As should be evident from our analysis, supra, the
evidence of obviousness relied upon simply would not have been
suggestive of, in particular, an adhesive reminder “sticker”,
a requirement of each of appellant’s independent tampon device
and method claims 1, 4, 10, and 16.
In summary, this panel of the board has reversed the
rejection of appellant’s claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007