Appeal No. 99-0920
Application No. 08/629,323
European reference (e.g., see Figure 5) would have suggested
applying, to the web, adhesive zones which are curvilinear as
required by the independent claims under review. Secondly, 4
the appellants’ contention that the adhesive zones in Figure
15 of Dickover “are linear in nature” is contrary to
patentee’s express disclosure that “FIG. 15 is a plan view . .
. showing the elastic members secured in a non-linear
configuration” (column 4, lines 24-28; emphasis added).
The appellants further argue that the oval adhesive zones
feature of dependent claim 21 is neither taught nor suggested
by the applied prior art. We cannot agree. From our
perspective, Figure 5 of the European reference shows or at
least would have suggested an oval shape and accordingly in
combination with Dickover would have suggested the oval
adhesive zones feature under consideration. Similarly, we are
unpersuaded by the appellants’ argument concerning the
sinusoidal pattern feature of dependent claims 22 and 23.
Indeed, this argument seems to be directly contrary to Figure
4We here emphasize that the test for obviousness is what
the combined teachings of the references would have suggested
to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007