Appeal No. 2006-0041 7
Application No. 10/037,377
of ordinary skill in the art in view of the recognition that such
a configured sanitary napkin [was] conventional and such
combination would obviate the need for a separate receptacle,
i.e. cost and use efficient, and the desire of Molnlycke to ...
combine the sheet 4 with any conventional sanitary napkin to
obviate the need for a separate package.” (Answer, Pg. 6).
Appellant has failed to persuade us that the Examiner
committed reversible error with regard to the rejection over
Molnlycke and Lassen for the following reasons.
The claim 15 is directed to an absorbent article such as a
labial pad that fits within a vestibule of a female wearer.
Lassen teaches such a pad (Col. 9, lines 60-65). As required by
claim 15, the pad of Lassen has a baffle that functions as a
fluid-impermeable shield, and an absorbent within the baffle that
is shaped to fit within a vestibule of a female. (Fig. 1; Col.
13, lines 1-35; and Col. 20, lines 55-60). However, Lassen fails
to teach a retainer flap attached to the absorbent article as
further required by claim 15. Molnlycke teaches a disposable
article that includes an absorbent body, liquid impermeable
layer, and a sheet that is attached to the absorbent body and the
liquid impermeable layer. (Pg. 1, lines 1-5 and Pg. 2, lines 4-
11 and 30-37). The sheet may be of different sizes, and can be
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007