Appeal No. 2000-0855
Application No. 08/597,377
facilitated as is accurate placement of the perforations at
the proper locations for achieving the desired elastic
characteristics of the resulting elastic structure.”
Thus, "design choice" is not applicable, and in the absence of
any further evidence of obviousness for the modification, we
cannot sustain the rejection of claim 3 over Proxmire.
Rejection (3)
Likewise, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 7
and 18 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Proxmire
in view of Pieniak, Sigl, Bianco, Buell and Richardson.
Claim 7 depends on claim 4 and additionally requires the
elastic band to include at least one region with perforations
which have a smaller extension in a direction in which the
elastic band acts than perpendicularly to said direction. See
the appellants’ specification, p. 10, ll. 20-29. The examiner
cites Pieniak, Sigl, Bianco, Buell and Richardson for
teachings of “various bond configurations or shapes or
patterns and regions which cause different elasticity”
(answer, p. 6). However, we agree with the appellants that
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007