Appeal No. 96-3347
Application 08/160,460
Claims 12 through 14, 23 and 24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Goodbar in view of Teed
(‘272) and further in view of Teed (‘782).
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejections on appeal in
light of the arguments of the appellants and the examiner. As
a result of this review, we have reached the conclusion that
the applied prior art does not establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to the subject matter on appeal.
Accordingly, the rejections on appeal are reversed. Our
reasons follow.
Appellants argue correctly that neither of the cited
references of Goodbar and Teed (‘272) discloses or
contemplates the use of superabsorbent materials. We note
further that the examiner on page 4 of the examiner’s answer
states that superabsorbent materials are well-known and it
would have been within the purview of those having ordinary
skill to use such in the diaper of Goodbar as modified by
Teed. However, by the examiner’s failure to include any
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007