Appeal No. 1998-0243
Application 08/455,374
the joined surface area is in comparison to appellants’ Embodiments 1 and 2.
In any event, the use of intermittent lines of adhesive as disclosed by Nomura would, as
discussed above, inherently cause a reduction in the decay of the waist elastic members 4.
Accordingly, we consider that the examiner has made out a prima facie case of obviousness as to
claim 1. Although Nomura appears on this record to be the closest prior art, appellants have not
presented any evidence to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness by showing that the claimed
decay range of less than about 66.67 grams is critical relative to the general reduction in decay
which would result from following the teaching of Nomura.
The rejection of claim 1 under U.S.C.§ 103 will therefore be sustained, as will the
rejection of claims 2 to 25, grouped therewith.
Rejection (2)
Appellants have presented no arguments in their brief concerning this rejection.
Consequently, it will be summarily sustained.
Conclusion
The examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 to 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and to reject
claims 12 to 25 on the ground of obviousness-type double patenting, is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007