Appeal No. 2001-2422
Application No. 08/817,573
However, appellants have argued that the examiner's
conclusion that Jessup '158 inherently teaches resistance to
stretch as set forth in claim 1 on appeal is based on an
incorrect understanding of the basic principles of elongation
and resistance to stretch, and that there is no teaching in
Jessup '158 to support making any determination regarding the
relative resistance to stretch between the various parts of
the waist border therein because there is insufficient
information provided in Jessup '158 to support any such
conclusion. In that regard, appellants note that since Jessup
'158 only discloses the elongation of the elastics therein,
there is no teaching of stiffness or resistance to stretch of
the elastic materials used
therein. The declaration by Ann Samuelsson (Paper No. 21,
filed November 12, 1999) supports this argument.
Like appellants, it is our opinion that the examiner's
stated position lacks reasonable support in Jessup '158 and is
based entirely on speculation and conjecture on the examiner's
part. It is well settled that inherency may not be
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007