Appeal No. 1998-2393
Application No. 08/295,874
Without the separate sheet being elastic in the Japanese
reference, appellants argue (request, page 6) that the Board’s
conclusion at the end of page 13 of the decision is no longer
fairly based since the stretchable elastic material 5 and
stretchable elastic material 13 together cannot be fairly said
to define an elastically stretchable region that covers
essentially the whole of at least one of the front and back
parts of the diaper as set forth independent claim 14. As
percieved by appellants, the Japanese reference shows only two
narrow strips of elastic 5,5, and 13 whereas with the present
invention a continuous region incorporates numerous elastic
elements 26.
In light of appellants’ commentary and our present
understanding of the Japanese reference, we share the view
that the applied Japanese document does not address at least
one elastically stretchable region covering essentially the
whole of at least one of the front and back parts of the
pants-type diaper of claim 14. Necessarily, it follows that
we also alter our earlier stated view (decision, page 13,
lines 1 through 7) by now indicating that the claimed “whole”
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007