Appeal No. 2005-0580
Application No. 09/732,871
claimed being equivalent as far as fiber or material quantity in
a specific location, i.e., having more in a center and gradually
decreasing outwardly therefrom, to a monolithically formed fiber
core” (answer, page 7). In combining the teachings of Karami and
Hochstrasser with Gravdahl to reject claims 1, 6 and 9, the
examiner appears to conclude that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would have found it obvious to compress the three strips
or layers of the core shown in Figure 1 of Gravdahl in the manner
taught by Karami and Hochstrasser to obtain an absorbent article
as shown in Figure 2 of Gravdahl (answer, page 7, line 6 through
13). In short, the only suggestion for this proposed combination
of disparate prior art teachings stems from hindsight knowledge
impermissibly derived from the appellant’s disclosure.
Consequently, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 6 and 9 as being obvious over
Gravdahl in view of Karami and Hochstrasser.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007