Appeal No. 2000-0117 Page 20
Application No. 08/770,676
previously, such a limitation does not necessarily restrict
the elastic members to be above the absorbent core.
Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, we will sustain
the examiner’s rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over the collective teachings of Matsushita, Igaue, Daio,
DesMarais and UniCharm.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1 and 4 through 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Matsushita, Igaue and Daio will not be
sustained.
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 8 and 10
through 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
the collective teachings of Matsushita, Igaue and Daio will 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