Appeal No. 2000-0117 Page 17
Application No. 08/770,676
The next rejection for our review is of claims 2, 7 and 9
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Matsushita, Igaue and Daio as
applied to claim 1 and further in view of DesMarais and
UniCharm. Claim 2 depends from independent claim 1 which
requires a “dual-layered top sheet” having elastic members
positioned therebetween. As noted above, neither Matsushita,
Igaue nor Daio disclose or suggest a dual-layered top sheet
with an elastic member provided therebetween. DesMarais
discloses an absorbent article having a top sheet (24), back
sheet (12) and absorbent core (16) intermediate the two
sheets. The top sheet has a passageway (22) for allowing
communication of solid waste materials to the core, thereby
isolating waste from the skin of the wearer. UniCharm
discloses elastic elements (11) for the leg openings which are
adhered to the back sheet (12) except in the center part (11a)
where the elastic elements are cut such that they snap back.
However, like the other references relied upon by the
examiner, DesMarais and UniCharm do not disclose or suggest a
dual-layered top sheet having the elastic member therebetween
as set forth in independent claim 1. Therefore, for the
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007