Appeal No. 1998-2818
Application 08/550,521
incorporation of this feature into either one of Uni-Charm or
Kao as a further enhancement thereof would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of these
teachings. It follows that we also will sustain the
examiner’s rejection of 8 as being unpatentable over Uni-Charm
or Kao in view of Daio ‘051, by Daio ‘052 and by Robertson,
and further in view of Buell.
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 2, 5-7, 13
and 14 as being unpatentable over Uni-Charm in view of Buell,
or the rejection of claims 3 and 4 as being unpatentable over
Uni-Charm or Kao in view of Buell. Claim 2 calls for the
first elastic members to be arranged substantially parallel to
the peripheral edge of the waist opening and for the second
elastic members to cooperatively form loops. Claims 3, 4, 13
and 14, in one form or another, call for the first and second
elastic members to possess different elastic properties.
Claims 5-7 set forth that the side panels are formed of
longitudinally arranged alternating expansible and non-
expansible portions. The examiner has not indicated, and it4
4 Consistent with appellant’s disclosure, we consider the
longitudinal direction of the side panels to be parallel to
18
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007