Appeal No. 1998-0243
Application 08/455,374
The references applied in the final rejection are:
Magid 3,225,764 Dec. 28, 1965
Nomura et al (Nomura) 5,147,487 Sep. 15, 1992
The claims stand finally rejected on two grounds:
(1) Claim 1 to 25, unpatentable over Nomura in view of Magid, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
(2) Claims 12 to 25, provisionally rejected on the ground of obviousness-type double patenting
over claims 1 to 22 of copending application No. 08/456,239.1
Rejection (1)
On page 3 of their brief, under “Grouping of the Claims,” appellants state that “claims
1-11 stand together, and claims 12-25 stand together.” However, since appellants do not explain
why claims 12 to 25 are believed to be separately patentable from claims 1 to 11, claims 1 to 25
will be treated as a single group, and pursuant to 37 CFR 1.192 (c)(7), we select claim 1 from the
group and will decide rejection (1) on the basis of that claim.
We note in passing that on page 2 of the brief, lines 2 and 3, appellants indicate that claim
12 is drawn to the method illustrated in Figures 5 and 6. This does not appear to be correct
because claim 12, like claim 1, recites the step of “folding each edge portion [of the base layer],
generally in a cross direction, over the elastic member.” Such a step is a part of the method
shown in Figure 4, as disclosed at page 50, lines 8 to 14. On the other hand, in the method of
1 Since the ‘239 application issued as Patent No. 5,711,832 on Jan. 27, 1998, the rejection
is no longer provisional.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007