Appeal No. 1998-2817
Application No. 08/455,366
34.
When read in light of the underlying specification, we cannot
agree that “selectively joined” in claim 1 embraces the use of
fastening tabs to join front panel 24 and back panel 26 at
side seams 34. At any rate, the language referred to by the
examiner concerns the joining of the front and back panels of
the training pant chassis 22, not the separate waist elastic
system 60. Thus, we agree with the appellants that Weil does
not teach or suggest a closed-loop elastic waist system.
Since all of the claim limitations are not taught or suggested
by Weil, the examiner has not established the prima facie
obviousness of the claimed invention. In re Royka, 490 F.2d
981, 985, 180 USPQ 580, 583 (CCPA 1974).
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection Based On Ales and Weil
We will sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3 through 7, 9
through 13, 15 through 19, 21 through 26 and 28 through 36
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Ales and Weil.
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007