Appeal No. 2000-1071 Page 4
Application No. 08/851,381
absorbent material from the withdrawal end of the pledget towards the insertion end to
produce an increase in fiber density in at least some locations along an axially-extending
central region of the tampon as compared to that in regions radially outside the central
region, radially compressing the pledget, and forming an indentation in the withdrawal end
of the pledget shaped to permit the user to apply an axial force for inserting the tampon.
There are two rejections. As we understand the examiner’s position in the first rejection, it
is that all of the subject matter recited is disclosed by Cloots, except for the indentation for
digital insertion, which would have been an obvious addition in view of the teachings of
Corrigan. In the second rejection, three references are added to the basic combination for
the purpose of demonstrating that it was known in the art to make tampons from a number
of different materials. As to both rejections, the appellants point out that Cloots does not
utilize a rolled layered pledget. They argue that Cloots does not, as the examiner has
implied, teach the step of radially displacing the central layers to increase the fiber density
along the central region, and that Corrigan does not teach creating an indentation in the
withdrawal end of the tampon unless an applicator stick is used. With regard to the
second rejection, they urge that the deficiencies in the primary references are not cured by
the three additional references.
The Rejection On The Basis Of Cloots And Corrigan
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007