Appeal No. 2000-1071 Page 6
Application No. 08/851,381
very small diameters and appear from the drawings to have pointed ends, features which
in our view would cause them to apply little if any axial compressive force upon the tampon
material (see Figures 32 and 33, and columns 17 and 18). Finally, even if one were to
consider the recess made by the two forming tools to be an “indentation” in the withdrawal
end of the tampon, it clearly is not “shaped to permit the user to apply an axial force
thereto” for inserting the tampon, as is required by step (d). Nor, of course, is that
indentation even available to the fingers of the user in the completed product at the time of
insertion, for at that point the applicator stick is installed therein.
Even if one were to accept, arguendo, the examiner’s position that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Cloots system by replacing the
1
wrapped batting with a rolled layered pledget, the teachings of Corrigan do not overcome
the deficiencies in Cloots pointed out above. Corrigan is directed to an improved coating
material for application to the forward portion of a tampon as an aid to insertion. In the
course of presenting the coating, Corrigan discloses a tampon that is provided with a
socket (recess) to receive a stick applicator, but teaches that “[w]hen the tampon is of the
digital insertion type, no stick is used and the socket may be dispensed with” (column 3,
lines 46 and 47). Contrary to the examiner’s theory, it is our opinion that application of this
1The appellants have admitted on page 1 of their specification that it was known at
the time of their invention to utilize rolled pledgets in the making of digital tampons,
however, the Cloots tampon is not a digital tampon.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007