Appeal No. 2000-0117 Page 18
Application No. 08/770,676
reasons set forth above, we will not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
collective teachings of Matsushita, Igaue, Daio, DesMarais and
UniCharm.
With respect to claim 7, independent claim 4 from which
claim 7 depends also requires “forming the top sheet by
positioning, between two sheets of material in elongated web
form, a pair of elastic members . . . .” Reiterating our
above discussion, none of the references disclose or suggest a
top sheet formed by two sheets with a pair of elastic members
therebetween. Therefore, we will also not sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
the collective teachings of Matsushita, Igaue, Daio, DesMarais
and UniCharm.
Appellants have presented separate arguments with respect
to the patentability of claim 9. Claim 9 depends from 4
independent claim 8, which does not require the “dual-layered
top sheet.” Appellants contend that claim 9 is patentably
4See pages 7 and 31 of the appellants’ brief.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007