Appeal No. 2004-0563
Application No. 09/975,747
inserted further up the vaginal canal than intended, this
would ensure that enough string remained outside the body
to allow the user to effectively grasp to remove the tampon
(examiner’s answer, page 3).
Appellant’s argument addressing the examiner’s rejection of claims 20 and 22 is
found on page 3 of the brief and reads as follows:
Applicant notes that the Examiner has suggested
why one of ordinary skill in the art might have found it
obvious to extend the length of the string of Yeo. However,
this is mere conjecture on the part of the Examiner and
there is nothing in the prior art of record to suggest such a
modification. It is respectfully submitted that merely
because one can, in hindsight, suggest a reason why
someone might have wished to modify an earlier reference
does not mean that it would have been obvious at the time
the invention was made to make the invention as claimed.
Claim 20 is respectfully submitted to be patentable as there
is no suggestion for modifying Yeo as suggested by the
Examiner, other than in the present application.
Like the examiner, we observe that Yeo discloses a tampon (10) having a
withdrawal string (16) which is secured to the tampon, and that the patentee notes in
column 3, lines 1-6, that the withdrawal string provides a safe and reliable means by
which the tampon (10) can be withdrawn from a woman’s vagina after it has absorbed
a certain amount of menstrual fluid. While Yeo discloses that the withdrawal string
(16) extends beyond one end of the tampon and sets forth that the string “normally”
has a length in the range of between about 2 and about 8 inches, we must agree with
the examiner that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007