Appeal No. 98-2787
Application 08/554,640
regions, and can provide improved body conformance
and fit. As a result, the article can be readily
configured to exhibit improved resistance to leakage
and to provide improved aesthetics.”
Claims 1 and 12 are representative of the subject matter
on appeal and a copy of those claims may be found in Appendix
1 of appellants’ brief.
The sole prior art reference of record relied upon by the
examiner as evidence of obviousness of the claimed subject
matter is:
Roessler et al. (Roessler) 5,540,672 Jul. 30, 1996
Claims 1 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Roessler. The examiner’s position
as stated in the paragraph bridging pages 2 and 3 of the final
rejection (Paper No. 7) is that Roessler
“discloses the claimed invention except for the
substantially coterminous relationship between the
ends of the outboard elastics and the side edges of
the articles. It would have been an obvious matter
of design choice to have provided such relationship,
since applicant has not disclosed that such
relationship solves any stated problem or is for any
particular purpose and it appears that the invention
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007