Appeal No. 2006-0544 Παγε 4
Application No. 10/159,076
We agree with appellants substantially for the reasons set forth at pages 5-14, and 16 of
the brief, and pages 1-6 of the reply brief.
The examiner correctly recognizes that the alleged admitted prior art technique
for making a child’s training pants set forth at page 1, lines 16-23 of appellants’
specification discloses many of appellants’ claimed method steps. However, appellants’
claimed mechanical handling step is not listed in the specification excerpt, which excerpt
is asserted as acknowledged prior art by the examiner. In this regard, the examiner
turns to both Siebers and Matsushita.
Siebers is concerned with garments, like disposable diapers, that include hook
and loop fasteners and the use of tension for obtaining increased latching strengths
between loop panels and hook tabs. As set forth at column 5, lines 30-62 of Siebers, a
diaper is placed around a wearer, a hook panel placed under tension and then engaged
with loop members of a loop panel flap. The examiner seemingly recognizes that
Siebers does not make a pre-fastened garment in a manner as here claimed.
Nonetheless, the examiner asserts that Siebers would have suggested
mechanical manipulation in a pre-fastened garment manufacturing method to one of
ordinary skill in the art because “one viewing Siebers et al would have understood how
to increase the hold of the mating components and would have been led to do the same
in order to make sure that the fit was good.” See page 6 of the answer. In this regard,
the examiner also asserts that problems with existing techniques for manufacturing
conventional garments, as outlined at page 1, line 24-32 were known and that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007