Appeal No. 2006-1394
Application No. 09/885,188
and low tension (Answer, page 7). The examiner does not rely on Cederblad for any
disclosure or suggestion of bonding to additional materials (id.).
Appellants argue that there is no suggestion in Beitz to form the gusset-flap
member as a sheet-like composite, and thus there is no suggestion to create a sheet-like
composite with a barrier layer (Brief, page 6; Reply Brief, page 3). This argument is not
persuasive for the reasons set forth by the examiner (Answer,
page 7), namely that Beitz discloses a composite structure similar to that of Melbye, i.e., a
laminate used in disposable garments, with the teaching of using a barrier layer to improve
the property of being liquid impermeable. Therefore we find that the examiner has
provided sufficient motivation for the proposed combination of references.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we determine that the
examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the reference
evidence. Based on the totality of the record, including due consideration of appellants’
arguments, we determine that the preponderance of evidence weighs most heavily in favor
of obviousness within the meaning of
§ 103(a). Therefore we affirm both of the rejections on appeal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007