Ex Parte GLAUG et al - Page 3




                Appeal No. 1998-0243                                                                                                    
                Application 08/455,374                                                                                                  


                Figures. 5 and 6, the edge portions 102, 104 of the base layer 98 are not folded over the elastic                       
                member 88 (contained in composites 97 and 112), but instead the composites are attached to the                          
                edge portions of the base layer by adhesive 74 (page 44, lines 19 to 24).                                               
                        Turning to the merits of the rejection, the examiner describes on pages 3 and 4 of the                          
                answer the portions of the disclosures of Nomura and Magid which are relevant to the method                             
                recited in claim 1; in particular, we note that Nomura discloses at col. 7, lines 19 to 22, that the                    
                adhesive 32, to which the waist elastic members 4 are bonded, may be applied “in a plurality of                         
                dots, intermittent lines or helical lines.”  As for the combination of Nomura and Magid, the                            
                examiner asserts that (answer, pages 4 to 5):                                                                           
                               It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have folded                        
                        the waistband, as is known from Magid, in the method of Nomura in order to provide                              
                        better integrity and strength at the waistband because both references are directed to the                      
                        construction of training pants.  It is the examiner’s position that in the above                                
                        combination, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to fold the                     
                        waistband after application of the elastic material but before the step of folding along the                    
                        central line 34.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                       
                Appellants contend that the combination would not have been obvious because the references do                           
                not recognize the problems discovered and solved by appellants, and there is no suggestion or                           
                compelling motivation to produce the claimed invention (brief, page 7).                                                 
                        We do not agree with appellants’ argument.  The case of In re Wright, 848 F.2d 1216,                            
                1219, 6 USPQ2d 1959, 1961 (Fed. Cir. 1988), cited by appellants at page 7 of their brief, has                           
                been overruled to the extent that it held that a prima facie obviousness rejection is not supported                     
                if no reference shows or suggests the newly-discovered properties and results of a claimed                              
                                                                   3                                                                    





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007