Appeal 2007-1015
Application 10/011,088
Here, as emphasized by Appellants in the arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner has not fairly explained how the provision of the elastic threads or
ribbons of Widlund (24 and 25, Fig. 4), which elements are considered by
the Examiner to be a part of the extensible outer cover and extensible
bodyside liner of Widlund, as well as being a part of the elastic leg
members, can meet the claimed requirement for a leg elastic member that is
captured between the extensible outer cover and the extensible bodyside
liner. In this regard, the Examiner’s references to elastic threads 15 and 18
of prior art Figure 1, elastic threads or ribbons 24 of the embodiment of
Figures 4-7, and the elastic threads 32 and 33 of the Figure 9 embodiment of
Widlund in the explanation of the anticipation rejection does not serve to
explain how any of these three distinct absorbent articles referenced by
Widlund includes features that meet all of the limitations of any of the
rejected claims such that a description of the rejected claimed subject matter
could be said to be found therein.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
claims 2, 3, 27, 35, 39, 40, and 41 by Widlund, on this record.
§ 103(a) Rejections
Turning to the obviousness rejections, we note that under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires a determination of:
(1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the
claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the
art; and (4) any secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co.,
383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966). The analysis supporting
obviousness should be made explicit and should “identify a reason that
would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013