Appeal No. 2006-0827
Application 10/025,214
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Everett
in view of GB ‘648 and Rosch.
Appellants have provided separate arguments only for claims 1
and 16 on appeal. Accordingly, all the appealed claims stand or
fall together with claims 1 and 16.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants’ arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the
examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of Section 103
in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will sustain the
examiner’s rejections for essentially those reasons expressed in the
answer, which we incorporate herein, and we add the following for
emphasis only.
We consider first the rejection over Putzier in view of GB
‘648. There is no dispute that Putzier, like appellants, discloses
an absorbent structure comprising an absorbent core and an absorbent
wrap which surrounds the core and overlaps a portion of itself.
Appellants also concur that Putzier expressly teaches a binder which
stabilizes the wrapper. It is appellants’ contention, however, that
Putzier does not disclose that the binder is mixed throughout the
fibrous absorbent material of the wrap. According to appellants,
“the binder [of Putzier] is not described as an integral element of
the wrapper, but instead is listed as an independent element” (page
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007