Appeal No. 2000-0117 Page 16
Application No. 08/770,676
members are to be secured to the sheet “where they extend
along the leg holes, and central sections of the first and
second cross-over portions spaced from the leg holes are not
secured to said sheet” (claim 8, lines 23-25). This
limitation does not restrict the elastic members to be above
the absorbent core. Therefore, claim 8 does not require that
the elastic members in the crotch region be positioned “over”
the absorbent core, as asserted by appellants. Moreover,
claim 8 also does not require a dual-layered top sheet as
further asserted by appellants. Since we find appellants’
arguments unpersuasive and that the collective teachings of
Matsushita, Igaue and Daio disclose and suggest the invention
as claimed, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim
8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The appellants have grouped claims 8 and 10 through 12 as
standing or falling together (brief, page 6). Thereby, in
accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), claims 10 through 12
fall with claim 8. Thus, it follows that the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 10 through 12 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) will also be sustained.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007