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.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007