Appeal No. 2000-1071 Page 7
Application No. 08/851,381
teaching to Cloots would result in the removal of the Cloots insertion stick as well as the
recess in which it is located, and therefore the requirement of the appellants’ step (d) that
there be an indentation shaped to permit the user to apply an axial force for inserting the
tampon is not met. Also, as was the case with Cloots, there is no factual basis from which
to conclude that forming the recess for the Corrigan stick, or inserting the stick, results in
the displacement of the central layers of material called for in the appellants’ step (c).
It therefore is our conclusion that the combined teachings of Cloots and Corrigan
fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to independent claim 31,
and we will not sustain this rejection. Since independent claim 40 contains the same steps
as claim 1, a prima facie case of obviousness is lacking there also, and we will not sustain
this rejection of claim 40 or of claims 35-39, which depend therefrom.
The Rejection On The Basis
Of Cloots, Corrigan, Bletzinger, Ganz And Wollf
As an alternative to the examiner’s position in the other rejection that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a rolled layered pledget in the
Cloots method, the examiner has added Bletzinger, Ganz and Wolff to the basic
references as evidence that rolled layered pledgets were known in the art at the time of the
appellants’ invention. Be that as it may, these references do not overcome the
deficiencies in the combination of Cloots and Corrigan which we pointed out above. This
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007