Appeal No. 2000-0117 Page 11
Application No. 08/770,676
core. See Col. 3, 11. 18-20" (brief, page 19). Appellants
support this argument by stating that
[n]one of the prior art appear to disclose or suggest
attaching the elastic members traversing the crotch
section above the absorbent core. This feature is embodied
in claims 1 and 4, for example, by recitation of the
relative positioning of the back sheet, absorbent core
and top sheet. Specifically, the absorbent core is recited
as being positioned between the dual-layered top
sheet and the back sheet. Thus, since claims 1 and 4
recite a dual-layered top sheet between which is interposed
two sets of elastic members, and since the elastic
members ‘extend continuously to a mid-point of the leg
holes,’ the elastic members of the claimed invention are
necessarily positioned above the absorbent core. This is
not the case in either Matsushita, Igaue or Daio (brief,
page 20).
We are in agreement with appellants, in that the examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to claim 1. Our analysis of the collective teachings
of the prior art references reveals that a dual-layered top
sheet having elastic members therebetween is neither disclosed
nor suggested. The examiner relied on Daio to provide this
teaching, but Daio discloses a dual-layered bottom sheet (2,
6) having elastic members (4) therebetween (Figure 2).
Although Daio teaches in another embodiment that the elastic
members (4, 5) can be affixed to the top sheet (1) and that an
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007