Appeal No. 95-3512
Application 08/092,540
As to the plastic limitation, whether one of the
layers is plastic or one of the materials taught by
Gilles is considered an obvious matter of design choice
to one of ordinary skill within the art as determined
by what material is considered most appropriate for the
article and in view of the fact that the inventive
concept of shielding the wearer from discomfort from
rough edges is not a function of the material in the
layers.
It would have been obvious to said artisan to
modify Gilles per the above cited teachings of
McConnell to provide a waistband that feels more
comfortable to the wearer [final rejection, Paper
No. 19, pages 3 and 4].
Claims 26, 34 and 41, the three independent claims on
appeal, recite with varying degrees of specificity a disposable
diaper comprising, inter alia, a plastic layer or material at or
extending to a waistband edge of the diaper and an associated
soft padding member. More particularly, claim 26 requires “a
plastic layer having an edge at the edge of the diaper” and “a
soft padding member located along at least one of said waistband
portions, being adjacent to said plastic layer edge . . .
including a material formed from a soft substance presenting a
soft surface along at least a portion of said inside of the
diaper waistband portion despite said plastic layer edge.” Claim
34 sets forth “a plastic material extending to an edge of the
body portion [of the diaper]” and “a first soft padding member
. . . including a strip of a soft substance located along at
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007