Appeal 2007-2825
Application 10/262,036
1 P&G maintains that one skilled in the art would learn absolutely
2 nothing about the benefit of lotion on a sanitary napkin from the prior art
3 relied upon by the Examiner. Appeal Brief 2-3. But, one skilled in the art is
4 more like a fox than an ostrich and would be aware of, and not ignore with
5 its head in the sand, its surroundings—in this case all of the disclosure in
6 Roe and Elder. Moreover, the argument is curious given that P&G told us in
7 the background of the invention that catamenial devices with lotion are
8 known. P&G has not favored us with an explanation why the benefits
9 achieved in the prior art differ from those achieved by using lotion on either
10 the Roe or Elder devices.
11 P&G next amounts an attack on the Examiner's rationale based on the
12 difference in the low viscosity urine in prolonged gushes received by a
13 diaper receives vis-à-vis high viscosity menses received in relatively small
14 amounts in sanitary napkins. First, one skilled the art knows the difference
15 between what a diaper needs to absorb vis-à-vis a sanitary napkin and is
16 capable of designing an absorbent layer for each. Second, the prior art tells
17 us that lotions can be present in diapers and sanitary napkins. Third, one
18 skilled in the art would know how, why and when to use a lotion in both.
19 P&G resorts to the ubiquitous lack of "motivation" argument. Appeal
20 Brief 3, last paragraph. To the extent that P&G presents an argument that
21 Roe and Elder must supply an explicit motivation to use lotion in a sanitary
22 pad, the argument is foreclosed by KSR.
23 P&G alleges that the claimed invention "provides a benefit for menses
24 handling including an improvement in skin and hair hygiene." Appeal Brief
25 2, third full paragraph, last sentence. The difficulty with P&G's argument is
16
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013