Appeal No. 2004-2012 Page 6
Application No. 09/183,087
lesser length than the first cuff and thus terminates at a point spaced inwardly of the
ends of the diaper, thus meeting this limitation of the claim. However, as the appellants
have pointed out, the examiner’s interpretation of the 100mm teaching is incorrect, for
the entirety of the passage to which the examiner refers states that this dimension is
“measured in accordance with the Japanese-Industrial-Standard-P8143,” which
standard is directed to measuring the stiffness of paper in terms of the units of length
which allow a suspended length of paper to be rotated or twisted 90 degrees about a
line axially passing through the ends, and this has nothing to do with the length of the
cuffs shown in Uni-Charm. Evidence in support of this interpretation was provided by
the appellants by reference to U.S. Patent No. 6,475,569, at column 2, lines 29-36. The
examiner has not disputed this interpretation of the passage in issue, and therefore the
appellants’ conclusion stands uncontroverted.
This being the case, the evidence adduced by the examiner fails to demonstrate
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Uni-
Charm diaper such that the second (inner) cuffs extend to locations “spaced apart
inwardly of said longitudinally opposite ends of said diaper,” as is required by
independent claim 1. The applied references therefore fail to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in claim 1, and the
standing rejection of claims 1-7 cannot be sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007