Appeal No. 1998-2834
Application 08/659,858
elastomer as the base material thereof is too remote from the
absorbent article of Kao KK and the skin contacting adhesive
of Kenney to suggest their combination in a manner that would
result in the subject matter of claims 21 and 28. Stated
differently, it appears that it is only through the hindsight
knowledge gleaned from first reading appellants’ disclosure
that one would have brought together the applied references in
the manner proposed by the examiner. It follows that we will
not sustain the standing rejection of claims 21 and 28 as
being unpatentable over Kao KK in view of Kenney and Noda.
Claim 29
Claim 29 depends from claim 18 and calls for the adhesive
to be in the form of discrete elements. Claim 29 further
specifies the surface area and thickness of such discrete
adhesive elements. The examiner relies on Fischer for a
teaching of discrete elements of adhesive and concludes that
the subject matter of claim 29 would have been obvious.
Appellants admit that “but for claim 29 depending from claim
18, such discrete elements would be obvious in view of the
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007