Appeal No. 2002-0741
Application No. 08/935,348
In applying the test set forth in 37 CFR § 1.601(n), we will
assume that the test for same patentable invention involves a
two-way patentability analysis. See Winter v. Fujita, 53 USPQ2d
1234, 1243 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2000).
Assuming that Paul’s claims 1 and 2 are prior art with
respect to appealed claims 1 and 2, it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the claimed
pressure sensitive hot melt adhesive of Paul as a body-side
adhesive for securing a sanitary napkin article to a wearer in
view of the teachings of Zacharias PCT ‘238. The additional
limitations set forth in appealed claims 4-6 and 8-12 also do not
patentably distinguish over the combination of Paul’s claims
1 and 2 and Zacharias PCT ‘238. More particularly, the
limitations of appealed claims 4-6 are taught by and would have
been obvious in view of the disclosures found in Zacharias PCT
‘238 at page 8, lines 23-26; page 6, lines 16-19; and page 6,
lines 10-12, respectively, and the limitations of appealed claims
8-12 are taught by and would have been obvious in view of the
disclosures found in Zacharias PCT ‘238 at claims 8-12 thereof.
Assuming that appealed claims 1, 2, 4-6 and 8-12 are prior
art with respect to claims 1 and 2 of Paul, claim 1 of Paul lacks
novelty over appealed claim 1 because the hot melt pressure
21
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007