Appeal No. 2006-0041 10
Application No. 10/037,377
would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in
the art, including non-preferred embodiments); Panduit Corp. v.
Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1568, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597,
cert. denied, 107 S.Ct. 2187 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (In determining
obviousness, a prior patent must be considered in its entirety).
Molnlycke discloses that “the sheet 4 simply constitutes an
addition to conventional absorbent articles, such as diapers and
sanitary towels.” (Molnlycke, Pg. 3, lines 25-27). Lassen
describes a conventional absorbent article. Lassen shows that
the pad is kept in a separate package (Figs. 11-13), just the
type of packaging Molnlycke seeks to replace. The suggestion to
include a retainer flap on the absorbent article of Lassen flows
from the express disclosures of the references. The fact that
Molnlycke further discusses specific embodiments of absorbent
articles does not negate the broader disclosure within the
reference.
Nor can we agree that Molnlycke teaches away from a flap
covering greater than about 40 percent of the surface as argued
by Appellant (Brief, Pg. 6). While the Appellant correctly notes
that Figures 1 and 2 depict a narrow retainer flap, other
disclosures within Molnlycke indicate that the extent of the flap
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007