Appeal No. 2004-0563
Application No. 09/975,747
In arriving at our decision on the obviousness issue raised in this appeal, we
have given careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims, the teachings
of the applied prior art Yeo reference, and the respective positions advanced by
appellant and the examiner. Upon evaluation of all of the evidence before us, it is our
conclusion that the examiner’s above-noted rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will be
sustained. Our reasoning for this determination follows.
In rejecting claims 20 and 22 as being obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of appellant’s invention, the examiner has determined that Yeo discloses a
tampon “substantially as claimed,” except that Yeo does not disclose a withdrawal
string having a length in the claimed range of 9-13 inches. In that regard, the examiner
notes that Yeo discloses a withdrawal string (16) which is said to “normally” have a
length extending beyond one end of the tampon (10) of “from about 2 inches to about
8 inches (about 50.8 mm to about 203.2 mm)” (col. 4, lines 8-11). To account for the
difference between the teachings of Yeo and the tampon apparatus claimed by
appellant, the examiner urges that
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to make the string of
Yeo 9 inches in length or even 11 inches in length to
provide more string for the user to grasp and manipulate
during removal of the tampon. In the event the tampon is
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007