Appeal No. 1998-3367
Application No. 08/545,717
on two points, namely, that (1) the skilled artisan would not
know where to start in looking for a material that might
satisfy the stiffness requirement of the claims, and (2) the
skilled artisan would not know what constitutes the “modified”
version of test ASTM D 4032-82 CIRCULAR BEND PROCEDURE used to
measure stiffness.
As to (1), we note at the outset that appellants’
invention is not technologically complex. The claims are
directed to a garment having an absorbent section and a waist
belt, and the specification informs us that the garment in
question is suitable for use in adult incontinence
applications (specification, page 2). Appellants assert (main
brief, page 5), and we agree, that the industry concerned with
making absorbent garments is a crowded and highly developed
art. We further note, as did appellants, that the examiner
acknowledges that the specific material from which the present
invention is made is not essential to the invention (answer,
page 9). In addition,
the declaration of co-inventor Ronnberg executed on September
23, 1997 (Paper No. 10), indicates that polyethylene and
polypropylene, traditional materials in this art whose
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007