Appeal No. 2006-0041 11
Application No. 10/037,377
varies with the design of the particular absorbent article. For
example, Molnlycke teaches that the configuration and dimensions
of the sheet 4 can be modified (Molnlycke, Pg. 6, lines 5-8). It
follows that the determination of the workable or optimal extent
of the retainer flap is a matter within the capabilities of the
ordinary artisan. In such a situation, it falls on Appellant to
show an unexpected result for the particular claimed extent. See
In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135,139, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir.
1996) and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA
1955).
We conclude that the Examiner has established a prima facie
case of obviousness with respect to the subject matter of claims
1, 5, 11, 13, 15, 19, and 25 which has not been sufficiently
rebutted by Appellant.
2. Rejection of claims 8-10 and 22-24 over Molnlycke and
Lassen, and further in combination of Lenaghan and Srinvasan.
To reject claims 8-10 and 22-24, the Examiner added Lenaghan
and Srinvasan as further evidence of obviousness. Appellant’s
argument again focuses on the combination of Molnlycke and Lassen
as it applies to claims 1 and 15. There being no new argument
over and above what we have already addressed, we conclude that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007