Appeal No. 2000-0117 Page 13
Application No. 08/770,676
the independent claim, we will also not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
collective teachings of Matsushita, Igaue and Daio.
We now turn to the examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and
10 through 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Matsushita in view
of Igaue and Daio. Appellants argue that claim 8 requires
“two sets of elastic members ‘selectively secured to said top
sheet,’ wherein the first and second sets of elastics extends
across the central section between the first and second leg
holes” (brief, page 22). Appellants further state that
even if the portions of the elastics traversing the Igaue
crotch region are bonded to the top sheet, the Igaue
elastics nevertheless still are positioned centrally
under the core. See Col. 3, 11. 18-20. . . . [T]o the
extent that Igaue et al. suggests that the elastics
traversing the crotch section may be attached to the
bottom side of the top sheet, Igaue is referring to that
portion of the elastics between the intersection point
and the edge of the absorbent core as best seen in FIG.
4. Beyond the edge of the absorbent core, the elastics
are positioned beneath the absorbent core in distinction
with claims 8 and 10-12. Matsushita and Daio are
similarly deficient insofar as they both at most disclose
the attachment of the elastic members traversing the
crotch section beneath the absorbent core (brief, pages
22-23).
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007