Appeal 2007-0326
Application 09/746,888
We determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness in view of the reference evidence, which prima facie case has
not been adequately rebutted by Appellants’ arguments.2 Therefore, we
AFFIRM all grounds of rejection in this appeal essentially for the reasons
stated in the Answer, as well as those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
We determine the following factual findings from the record in this
appeal:
(1) Krzysik discloses an absorbent article comprising a bodyside liner,
an outer cover, an absorbent core located between the bodyside
liner and the outer cover, and the liquid permeable bodyside liner
defines a bodyfacing surface on which a lotion formulation has
been applied, where the lotion formulation comprises an emollient,
a wax, and a viscosity enhancer (Abstract; col. 2, ll. 10-30; col. 3,
ll. 12-23; col. 9, ll. 31-41; and the Answer 3-4);
(2) Krzysik desires a lotion formulation that has a reduced level of
migration, which leads to improved transfer to the wearer’s skin,
and acts as a lubricant to reduce abrasion to the skin and improve
the skin health (Abstract; col. 1, ll. 48-53; and col. 2, ll. 23-25);
(3) Krzysik teaches the inclusion of “active ingredients” in the lotion
formulation to “treat the skin” or act as a skin protectant (col. 11,
ll. 7-22); Krzysik further teaches that additional ingredients can be
2 We have also considered the Decision in related Appeal No. 2005-1186
(S.N. 09/746,872), as well as the record in related Appeal No. 2007-0042
(S.N. 09/746,880), and related U.S. Patent Nos. 6,287,581 B1 and 6,475,197
B1 (S.N. 09/382,018; see the Specification 2:13-20).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013