Appeal No. 2006-0827
Application 10/025,214
of Everett in order to enhance its strength. The fact that Everett
does not utilize a binder in its wrapper does not, in our view,
militate against the obviousness of doing so in view of the state of
the prior art. While appellants maintain that the purpose of
Everett’s wrap is to confine the absorbent material in the core, the
examiner points out that “Everett itself clearly states that the
wrapper itself is to be made of an absorbent material [and] Everett
employs materials which are the same as the materials employed in
the instant application, including cellulosic webs” (page 10 of
answer, first paragraph). As for the claimed wrap providing at
least 20% of the total absorbent capacity of the structure, we refer
to pages 10 and 11 of the examiner’s answer. Also, in the absence
of unexpected results, we find that it would have been obvious for
one of ordinary skill in the art to distribute the absorbency of the
structure in accordance with its particular use. Again, appellants
cite no evidence of unexpected results.
As for the rejection of claims 15, 34 and 35-48 over Everett in
view of GB ‘648 and Rosch, appellants essentially rely upon the same
argument that “there is no suggestion or motivation to apply the
binder material of GB ‘648 to the wrapper material in Everett et
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007