Appeal No. 2000-0117 Page 12
Application No. 08/770,676
absorbent core and single bottom sheet (2A) are then
superposed, there is no specific teaching or suggestion of a
“dual-layered” top sheet with the elastic elements positioned
therebetween as set forth in appellants’ claim 1.
Furthermore, we find that the collective teachings of
Matsushita and Igaue also do not disclose or suggest a dual-
layered top sheet with an elastic member positioned
therebetween. For these reasons, we will not sustain the
examiners rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
the collective teachings of Matsushita, Igaue and Daio.
Independent claim 4 also requires “forming the top sheet
by positioning, between two sheets of material in elongated
web form, a pair of elastic members . . . .” As we noted
above, none of the references relied upon by the examiner
discloses or suggests a top sheet formed by two sheets with a
pair of elastic members therebetween. Therefore, we will not
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) over the collective teachings of Matsushita, Igaue and
Daio. Moreover, since claims 5 and 6 depend from independent
claim 4 and, thus, include all of the limitations set forth in
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007