Appeal No. 2006-1394
Application No. 09/885,188
16-17 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Melbye in
view of Cederblad, Beitz and Mleziva (Answer, page 5).
Based on the totality of the record, we affirm both grounds of rejection on appeal
essentially for the reasons expressed in the Answer, as well as those reasons set forth
below.
OPINION
The examiner finds that Melbye discloses an elastic material used in a disposable
garment comprising a plurality of extruded continuous elastomeric strands which are
bonded to a facing layer (Answer, page 3). The examiner finds that the strands of Melbye
may be placed in greater quantity in certain regions and/or thicker and thinner strands may
be used in order to produce an elastic material “having different zones of elasticity” which
are equivalent to the claimed high and low tension zones (id.). The examiner further finds
that Melbye does not expressly disclose that the different zones of elasticity include first
filaments of a first elastomeric polymer and second filaments of a second elastomeric
polymer, nor does the reference disclose the claimed barrier layer (id.).
The examiner applies Cederblad for its disclosure of an extruded bicomponent
elastomeric netting having bidirectional elasticity, where both sets of strands could be the
same or different compositions, or a blend of resins (Answer, page 4). The examiner
applies Beitz for the disclosure of a gusset-flap member which includes a barrier layer
which is substantially liquid impermeable (Answer, pages 4-5).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007