Appeal No. 2007-0752 Page 10
Application No. 09/957,109
six (claims 8 and 17), eight (claims 9 and 18) or ten (claims 10 and 19) lines.
The examiner finds that Unger does not teach a pantiliner with at least
four, six, eight or ten fold lines. Answer, page 6. To make up for this deficiency,
the examiner relies on Hines to “teach forming a W-shape in the central area and
a[n] inverted V shape in the rear end region but with at least 4, 6, 8, or 10 fold
lines.” Answer, page 7. From this evidence the examiner concludes that it would
be obvious “[t]o make the at least two fold lines which form the various shapes of
Unger at least 4, 6, 8 or 10 fold lines as taught by Hines. . . .” Id. According to
the examiner (id.), “the number of fold lines of Unger and Hines all function to
provide certain shapes.”
The examiner does not discuss Everhart. Nevertheless, we assume the
examiner relies on Everhart to disclose a high pulp content nonwoven composite
fabric that may be used as an absorbent as discussed above.
As discussed above, Unger fails to teach or suggest a pantiliner as set
forth in appellants’ claimed invention. As further discussed above, Everhart fails
to make up for the deficiencies in Unger. Therefore, we turn to Hines for a
teaching of a pantiliner that may be adjusted in size depending on panty size, by
folding said pantiliner along at least one embossed fold line to allow the periphery
side areas of the pantiliner to be positioned under a panty prior to, and while in
use as required by appellants’ claimed invention.
However, we find that Hines teaches a sanitary napkin which is
constructed to form a W-shape when worn. Specifically, Hines teaches a
sanitary napkin which has lines of weakness which allow the sanitary napkin to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013