Appeal No. 1998-2262
Application 08/745,303
Watanabe since the appellants have not challenged such with
any reasonable specificity, thereby allowing these claims to
stand or fall with claim 64 (see In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567,
1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
Claim 71 depends from claim 64 and requires, inter alia,
a waist elastic comprising threads. The appellants’
contention (see page 17 in the brief) that the obviousness
rejection of this claim is flawed because the Igakami
reference discloses a waist elastic composed of ribbons rather
than threads is not persuasive. Watanabe’s disclosure (see
column 6, lines 56 through 60) that waist elastic 8a, 8b can
be in the form of belts (i.e., ribbons/bands) or yarns (i.e.,
threads) would have suggested the substitution of elastic
threads for Southwell’s waist elastic bands 31.
Accordingly, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. §
103 rejection of claim 71 as being unpatentable over Southwell
in view of Suzuki, Tanzer, Igaue, Kitaoka, Watanabe and
Igakami.
Finally, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. §
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007