Appeal No. 2001-2422
Application No. 08/817,573
0PINION
Having carefully reviewed the anticipation and
obviousness issues raised in this appeal in light of the
record before us, we have come to the conclusion that the
examiner's rejections of the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) and 35 U.S.C. § 103 will not be sustained. Our
reasoning in support of these determinations follows.
Regarding the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 8
and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based on Jessup '158, the
examiner has urged (final rejection, page 2) that the
elasticity of the waist border taught in Jessup '158 is
correlated to resistance to stretch and thus Jessup '158
inherently teaches the resistance to stretch as claimed. The
examiner notes that
[s]ince jessup [sic, Jessup '158] teaches the
central parts of the waist border can have the same
elasticity or different elasticity, i.e. greater or
lesser elasticity, as compared to the side parts,
Jessup teaches that the elasticity of the central
parts can be anything. Likewise since there is
necessarily a correlation between elasticity and
resistance to stretch it follows that the resistance
to stretch can also be anything.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007