Appeal No. 96-3549
Application 08/171,484
through 50), assuring the certainty of the mechanical
engageability of the aforementioned first and third elements.
Other than argument, appellants have not come forward with any
showing to the contrary to prove that the disposable absorbent
garment of Wilson does not in fact possess the inherent
characteristic relied upon. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705,
708-09, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). We note that
appellants (brief, page 6) seem to implicitly acknowledge the
capability of the aforementioned engagement of the snap closures
and elements by referring simply to the difficulty (not the
impossibility) of securing ?the secondary load bearing closure
means to the primary snaps?. We also appreciate, again contrary
to appellants’ viewpoint (brief, pages 7 and 8), that snap
closure 62A or 62B (third fastening element) would be positioned
on the body portion of the outside surface of the garment of
Wilson (column 7, line 65 to column 8, line 3), as claimed. We
also recognize that the disclosed arrangement in Wilson (column
8, lines 1 through 3) of snaps applied directly to a stretchable
outer cover material would effect the claimed overlapping
configuration, again notwithstanding appellants’ view to the
contrary (brief, pages 8 and 9). As a concluding point we note
that, while appellants indicate (brief, page 6) that the snap 62B
is not necessarily the same size and configuration as the primary
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007