well known to those skilled in the art to supply disposable feminine hygiene pads in a
container that serves to carry new pads and to hold used pads. (Examiner’s Answer, p.
4). The examiner found,
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
modify the system of Jones by incorporating a supply of pads in
the containers in view of the teaching of Barrow [sic] in order
to obviated [sic] the need to have a [sic] separate individual
packages and economize material by using the same container
twice. (Examiner’s Answer, p. 4).
The examiner relied on May to teach a resealable closure mechanism having a
slider device. The examiner found,
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
modify zip lock bags of Jones by constructing a closure
comprising opposed slide fastener members extending across
the respective front and back walls extending across the
respective front and back walls generally adjacent the opening,
and a slide fastener slidable relative to the front and back walls
for releasably engaging the slide fastener members together to
close the opening as taught by May, in order to permit easy
access for opening the bag. (Examiner’s Answer, p. 4).
The appellants present two arguments: (1) it would not have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Jones in view of the teaching of
Burrow; and (2) even when combined, Jones, Burrow, and May fail to teach or suggest a
package comprising a receptacle and a supply of pads in the receptacle in a hygienic
condition. (Appellant’s Brief, pp. 7, 9)
With regard to motivation to combine Jones and Burrow, the appellants argue that
one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated by any of the cited
references to modify Jones to provide a receptacle and a supply of pads therein in a
hygienic condition because neither Jones, Burrow, nor May “teach or suggest placing
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007