Appeal No. 96-1366
Application 08/105,617
lines 62-63) which at least suggests that the additional pads
are not adhered to the welding line.
Appellants argue that there are advantages of the
floating panel design. We do not find this argument
persuasive because the advantages were not disclosed in
appellants’ disclosure. In fact appellants’ specification
states that it is also within the scope of the invention to
arrange the auxiliary panel so that the bottom of the panel is
in contact with the top surface of the diaper’s crotch zone
even in a curved state. (See specification at pages 6-7). In
addition, we agree with the examiner that the placement of the
auxiliary panel at a distance of at least 10 mm would have
been an obvious matter of design choice, as appellants’
specification attaches no particular significance to this
feature. Therefore, in our view the selection of a specific
distance at which the auxiliary panel floats above the welding
line is a matter of engineering design choice and does not
patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the prior
art. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA
1975).
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007