Appeal 2007-1560
Application 10/680,968
materials (see Coles and Osborn generally). While Coles may have
a preference for a certain degree of stretching in which the
composite layer could have been extended, this does not detract
from the knowledge of persons of ordinary skill in this art who may
desire an article that has further stretching capability. The Osborn
reference is evidence that the selection of liner materials that provide
a retraction capability differential specified by the claimed invention
would have been well within the capabilities of a person of skill in
this art. Contrary to Appellants' arguments, the use of materials
having an elongation of at least 10% in the invention of Coles would
not have destroyed Cole's intended purpose of producing an
absorbent article that could easily be stretched in selected areas.
For the foregoing reasons and those presented in the Answer,
the rejection of claims number 1-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combined teachings of Coles and Osborn is
affirmed. As a final point with respect to the § 103 rejections, we
note that Appellants base no argument upon objective evidence of
nonobviousness, such as unexpected results.
ORDER
The rejection of claims number 1-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first and second paragraphs are reversed. The rejection of claims
1-31 under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) is affirmed.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013