Appeal No. 1998-2818
Application 08/550,521
is not apparent to us, where these features are taught in the
references cited against the claims. Accordingly, the
examiner has failed to meet her initial burden of establishing
a prima facie case of obviousness of these claims.
Summary
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 4 and 9-12 as being
unpatentable over Uni-Charm or Kao is reversed.
The rejection of claims 2, 5-7, 13 and 14 as being
unpatentable over Uni-Charm is reversed.
The rejection of claim 8 as being unpatentable over Uni-
Charm or Kao in view of Daio ‘051, Daio ‘052 and Robertson is
reversed.
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 4 and 9-12 as being
unpatentable over Uni-Charm or Kao in view of Buell is
affirmed as to claims 1 and 9-12, but is reversed as to claims
3 and 4.
The rejection of claims 2, 5-7, 13 and 14 as being
unpatentable over Uni-Charm in view of Buell is reversed.
the opposed longitudinal sides of the rectangular body, as set
forth in claim 1.
19
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007