Appeal No. 2007-0752 Page 9
Application No. 09/957,109
Unger and Everhart
Claims 4 and 11-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Unger and Everhart. The examiner finds
appellants’ claims are directed to “the specific composition of the core which
Unger does not teach. . . .” Answer, page 6. To make up for this deficiency, the
examiner relies on Everhart. Everhart discloses a high pulp content nonwoven
composite fabric that may be used as an absorbent. See, e.g., Abstract.
According to the examiner (Id.), it would have been prima facie obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to “employ
the absorbent component of Everhart on the absorbent personal care product of
Unger. . . .”
However, as discussed above, Unger fails to teach or suggest a pantiliner
as set forth in appellants’ claimed invention. Everhart fails to make up for this
deficiency in Unger. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 4 and 11-15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Unger and
Everhart.
Unger and Hines with or without Everhart
Claims 7-10 and 16-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Unger and Hines with or without Everhart.
Claims 7-10 and 16-19 depend from and further limit the pantiliner of claims 1
and 11 respectively wherein at least one fold line includes four (claims 7 and 16),
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013