Appeal 2007-2198
Application 10/324,181
the applied prior art do not suggest modifying the raised projections of Curro
to a high aspect ratio columnar projection (id.).
Hence, the principal issue before us with respect to the Examiner’s
first stated rejection is: Have Appellants identified reversible error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection by their assertion of a lack of suggestion
for one of ordinary skill in the art to undertake a modification of Curro’s
forming structure (aberrations) protrusions based on the combined teachings
of the applied references? We answer this question in the negative, and we
affirm the Examiner’s first stated rejection for the reasons set forth above
and in the Answer and as further explained below.
As Appellants have acknowledged, Ahr discloses the formation of
high aspect ratio projections on a film surface. Moreover, as the Examiner
has pointed out (Answer 4 and 5), Ahr teaches or suggests that such high
aspect ratio projections on a film surface used as a skin contact layer in an
absorbent article are particularly advantageous in enhancing the dryness of
the film layer containing such projections and are a comfort feature for the
user (Ahr, Abstract, p. 7, l. 25 et seq.).
The thrust of Appellants’ argument with the Examiner’s obviousness
position rests on the assertion that because Ahr did not use a forming
structure for forming the high aspect ratio film surface projections, it would
not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that
such high aspect ratio film surface projections could also have been made by
using a forming structure as taught by Curro for making film surface
projections by modifying the projection forming portion of Curro’s forming
structure so that high aspect ratio film surface projections would result. We
are not persuaded by this argument for substantially the reasons stated by the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013