Appeal No. 1999-2630
Application 08/341,464
in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871,
881 (CCPA 1981).
The disclosures by Imsande and Cherrin of the benefits of
printed adhesive-inhibiting masks as compared to relatively
thick adhesive-blocking layers, and particularly Imsande’s
favorable comparison of such printed masks to fingerlift tabs
of the general sort disclosed by Panza, would have provided the
artisan with ample suggestion or motivation to replace Panza’s
fingerlift strips 20 and 23 with printed adhesive-inhibiting
masking means. Thus, the combined teachings of Panza, Imsande
and Cherrin belie the various lack of suggestion arguments
advanced by the appellants. The related arguments that the
proposed reference combination would destroy the fingerlift
function and so-called “thickness balance” of Panza’s diaper
fasteners are also unpersuasive. Printed adhesive-inhibiting
masks of the sort disclosed by Imsande and Cherrin would merely
provide different fingerlift constructions on the Panza tape
fasteners, not destroy
the function thereof. Furthermore, Panza makes no mention of
“thickness balance,” and there is nothing in this reference to
support the appellants’ contention that the tape fastener stock
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007