Appeal No. 98-1314
Application No. 08/421,640
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of (a) claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 11-15, 17-
22, 25-35, 37 and 38 based on the combined teachings of
Krushnel and Rossini and (b) claims 1, 2, 4, 6-15, 17-22, 25-
35, 37 and 38 based on the combined teachings of Flug and
Rossini.
Turning now to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of
claims 36 and 39-41 as being unpatentable over (a) Krushnel in
view of Rossini and (b) Flug in view of Rossini, independent
claims 36 and 39 each require that the fastener be attached to
a separate elasticized side panel. We have carefully 5
reviewed Krushnel, Rossini and Flug, but fail to find any
teaching or suggestion of such an arrangement. This being the
case, we will not sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
of claims 36 and 39-41 (a) based on the combined teachings of
4(...continued)
210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 229 (CCPA 1971).
5The answer fails to address the appellants' arguments
that the relied on prior art fails to either teach or suggest
this limitation.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007