Appeal No. 98-2812
Application 08/473,054
Considering the strands 56 disclosed in the Zehner reference, either these strands are identical
or they are they not identical to one another. If they are not identical in composition, length, etc., then
the claim limitation of different elastic power is met by the Zehner disclosure. Zehner is silent with
respect to whether the strands are identical. They are shown as similar in length and diameter in the
figure. The appellants assume that they are identical and so argue in the brief at page 5. If we assume
that they are identical, the examiner has made the finding that the inner strand is stretched to “a greater
radius of curvature” than the outer strands. This finding seems plausible in view of Figure 9 which
shows the elastic cushion barrier 52 as curved in use. Note, that if the elastic strands are arranged in the
cushion barrier in a horizontal plane, as shown in Figure 4, the radius of curvature, as mentioned by the
examiner, is different. The examiner’s point is well taken that the inside edges, i.e., the portions nearest
the medial plane of the diaper, of the cushion barriers 52 are elongated a greater distance than the outer
edges due to the curve. The greater elongation of the inner edges results in the examiner’s posited
greater “elastic power” under Hooke’s Law.
While the appellants dispute the examiner’s finding of greater elongation at the inner edge of the
cushion barrier, the appellants merely state that this assumption is undeterminable from the figures. My
own perusal of the figures shows that this is in error. In light of the clear
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007