Appeal No. 2000-1728 Page 12
Application No. 08/785,128
The female external genitalia is described on page 5 of the appellants’ specification as
including, inter alia, the labia majora and the labia minora, which in the absence of
evidence to the contrary we interpret to define the “labial groove” recited in claim 13.
On page 43 and in Figure 2, Visscher discloses flaps 62 which extend outwardly
from the longitudinal edges of the sanitary napkin. While the purpose of these flaps is not
stated, it is our view that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add
them to the longitudinal side edges of the lower absorbent member for the self-evident
advantages thereof, such as providing additional impervious backing sheet protection and
an additional area of attachment to the user’s undergarment, which would have been
known to the artisan, for in an obviousness assessment, skill is presumed on the part of the
artisan, rather than the lack thereof. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774
(Fed. Cir. 1985). We are not persuaded otherwise by the appellants’ assertion that
Visscher’s teachings are not pertinent since the reference does not utilize multiple
absorbent members.
For the reasons set forth above, it is our conclusion that the combined teachings of
DesMarais and Visscher establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the
subject matter recited in claim 13, and we will sustain this rejection.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007