Appeal No. 1998-2818
Application 08/550,521
page 16), that Buell teaches “discreet [sic, discrete] but
affixed ear flaps of different materials.” Thus, on the
record before us, we will accept the examiner’s unchallenged
finding that Buell discloses side panels made of a material
that is different from the material of the topsheet of the
diaper. Based on these teachings, we conclude that in2
separately forming the side panels of Uni-Charm and/or Kao, it
would have been further obvious to carry forward Buell’s
teaching of making the side panels and topsheet of different
2In any event, appellant’s specification does not
disclose in what way the material of the side panels differs
from the material of the topsheet. Accordingly, giving this
claim language it broadest reasonable meaning (see, for
example, In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322
(Fed. Cir. 1989)), the material of the side panels may differ
from the material of the topsheet in any number of ways and
still fall within the scope of the claims. For example, the
rather broad language of claim 1 in this regard covers diaper
elements that are made from laminates that differ as to one or
more of their constituent layers, such as disclosed by Buell
at side panels 30 comprising panel members 90 versus topsheet
24 that does not include such panel members. The broad
language of claim 1 also covers diaper elements that are made
of the same starting material and thereafter processed
differently to obtain different properties, such as disclosed
by Buell at side panels 30 that are subjected to mechanical
stretching to provide a “zero strain” stretch laminate in to
improve their stretchability (column 11, lines 21-34). Thus,
the side panels 30 of Buell are considered to be made from a
material that differs from the material of the topsheet.
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007