Appeal No. 2000-2185 Page 8
Application No. 08/834,777
topsheet 21 is disclosed as being either elastic or inelastic
material (column 4, lines 40-42).
As for the recitation in claim 35, from which claim 44
depends, of a package comprising a plurality of absorbent
articles, appellants do not contest the examiner’s statement
on page 5 of the answer that the packaging of multiple
disposable absorbent articles was generally known to those
skilled in the art at the time of appellants’ invention. From
our perspective, in view of the well known and conventional
practice of packaging a plurality of disposable diapers in a
single package, it would have been obvious to one skilled in
the art to package a plurality of the disposable diapers of
Roessler, in the storage position illustrated in Figure 6, in
a single package for subsequent use by the consumer.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded by
appellants’ arguments that the examiner’s conclusion that the
subject matter of claim 44 would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellants’ invention
in view of the teachings of Roessler is in error.
Accordingly, we shall sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claim 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007