Appeal No. 2000-2185 Page 7
Application No. 08/834,777
critical, the claimed peel strength would have been a routine
engineering choice to one skilled in the art. Appellants have
not challenged the examiner’s position with regard to the peel
strength.
Appellants argue that Roessler fails to describe or
suggest a package of disposable absorbent articles which
include a hook-and-loop type mechanical fastener wherein the
base of the hook material is attached to an elastic ear tab
and the stemlike projections of the hook material are
releasably engaged with the elastic ear tab to protect the
stemlike projections before the article is packaged (brief,
pages 5 and 7).
To the extent that appellants’ position is that the ear
portions 17, 18 of the topsheet 21 are not “elastic ear tabs”
as recited in independent claim 35, we do not share their
opinion. The portion of the topsheet 21 with which the hook
material 31 is engaged in the storage position shown in Figure
6 is clearly part of one of the "ear portions" 17, 18, which
we consider to be "ear tabs" as recited in appellants' claim
35, from which claim 44 depends. Moreover, contrary to
appellants’ argument on page 5 of the brief, Roessler's
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007