Appeal No. 1998-2818
Application 08/550,521
unpatentable over Uni-Charm. Concerning the rejection of
dependent claim 8 as being unpatentable over Uni-Charm or Kao
in view of Daio ‘051, Daio ‘052 and Robertson, we have
carefully reviewed each of the additionally cited references
relied upon in this rejection but find nothing therein that
makes up for the deficiencies of Uni-Charm and Kao noted above
in our discussion of claim 1. Therefore, we also will not
sustain the rejection of claim 8 as being unpatentable over
Uni-Charm or Kao in view of Daio ‘051, Daio ‘052 and
Robertson.
We now turn to the § 103 rejections that rely in part on
Buell. These include the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4 and 9-12
as being unpatentable over Uni-Charm or Kao in view of Buell,
the rejection of claims 2, 5-7, 13 and 14 as being
unpatentable over Uni-Charm in view of Buell, and the
rejection of claim 8 as being unpatentable over Uni-Charm or
Kao in view of Daio ‘051, Daio ‘052 and Robertson, and further
in view of Buell.
The examiner alternatively contends that it would have
been obvious to separately form the ear or side panel portions
of the diapers of Uni-Charm and/or Kao in view of the
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007