Appeal No. 1998-2818 Application 08/550,521 is not apparent to us, where these features are taught in the references cited against the claims. Accordingly, the examiner has failed to meet her initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of these claims. Summary The rejection of claims 1, 3, 4 and 9-12 as being unpatentable over Uni-Charm or Kao is reversed. The rejection of claims 2, 5-7, 13 and 14 as being unpatentable over Uni-Charm is reversed. The rejection of claim 8 as being unpatentable over Uni- Charm or Kao in view of Daio ‘051, Daio ‘052 and Robertson is reversed. The rejection of claims 1, 3, 4 and 9-12 as being unpatentable over Uni-Charm or Kao in view of Buell is affirmed as to claims 1 and 9-12, but is reversed as to claims 3 and 4. The rejection of claims 2, 5-7, 13 and 14 as being unpatentable over Uni-Charm in view of Buell is reversed. the opposed longitudinal sides of the rectangular body, as set forth in claim 1. 19Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007