Appeal No. 2004-0563
Application No. 09/975,747
time of appellant’s invention to lengthen the withdrawal string of Yeo to a length within
the claimed range so as to provide the self-evident advantage of more withdrawal
string for the user to grasp and manipulate during removal of the tampon, especially in
the event the tampon may be inserted or migrate further up the vaginal canal than
normal or intended.
While we can agree with appellant that there is nothing in Yeo to specifically or
expressly suggest a modification in the length of the withdrawal string therein of the
nature urged by the examiner, we point out that there are three possible sources for
motivation to combine or modify references: 1) the nature of the problem to be solved,
2) the teachings of the prior art, and 3) the knowledge of persons of ordinary skill in the
art. In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1357, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
In this case, it appears the examiner has relied upon all three of these sources to
support the rejection before us on appeal. In that regard, we note that Yeo only states
that the withdrawal string “normally” has a length in the range of about 2 to about 8
inches, thereby, in our view, impliedly suggesting that other lengths may be used when
appropriate. As for the nature of the problem to be solved and the knowledge of
persons of ordinary skill in the art, we point to the discussion of the problem to be
solved set forth on page 1 of appellant’s specification. More particularly, we observe
that appellant indicates that it is a well known problem that due to frictional migration
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007