Appeal No. 2006-0041 8
Application No. 10/037,377
folded over the absorbent body to serve as a package. (Pg. 2,
lines 35-37, and Pg. 6, lines 5-10). Therefore, the sheet allows
the absorbent article to be carried in a hygienic manner after
use, without the need of a separate bag. (Abstract, last
sentence).
Appellant argues that “the cited references cannot be
combined as suggested by the Examiner to render the claimed
invention obvious.” (Brief, Pg. 6). Is so arguing, Appellant
focuses on the specific embodiments of Molnlycke that include a
diaper as shown in Figures 1 and 2 and an incontinence protector
as shown in Figures 3-5. The Appellant then concludes that
neither the embodiment of Figures 1-2 nor the embodiment of
Figures 3-5 of Molnlycke can form the basis of the obviousness
rejection. (Brief, Pg. 6-7).
First, we disagree with Appellant’s characterization of the
Molynlycke embodiments of Figures 1-2 and 3-5. These embodiments
are not, contrary to the argument of Appellant, limited to
teaching an elastic sheet 4 (the claimed retainer flap) on the
body faceable surface of an absorbent article. While Figure 1
depicts sheet 4 as being on the same side as the body-faceable
surface of the illustrated diaper, Molnlycke also discloses
pulling the end of the diaper inside-out, like pulling a pocket
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007