Appeal No. 2006-1670 Page 7
Application No. 10/336,729
standing or falling with claim 45. The appellants contend that, in addition to the argument
discussed above that Ghanem discloses neither a padded panel nor a continuous fastener, the
applied references provide no suggestion to modify Ghanem as proposed by the examiner.
We find the argument that Ghanem discloses neither a padded panel nor a continuous
fastener unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above. With respect to the modification of
Ghanem proposed by the examiner, that is, “to form the top panel of Ghanem with an upper
surface formed of absorbent material for comfort” (answer, p. 8), Ghanem describes the upper
panel as being “absorbent.” We additionally note that claim 45 does not require an absorbent
upper panel. Thus, for the reasons discussed above, no modification to Ghanem is required to
meet the “padded” or “absorbent” limitations of claim 45 or any other claim included in this
rejection. The rejection of claim 45, as well as claims 1, 2, 5, 8-10, 12, 13, 16-21, 23-25, 27, 28,
31, 34-36, 38, 42-44, 46,47 and 49-51 standing or falling therewith, as being unpatentable over
Ghanem in view of Blake is sustained.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 8-10, 12-15, 17-21, 23-25, 27, 28, 31, 34-
36, 38, 40, 41, 43-47 and 49-51 as being unpatentable over Blake in view of Ghanem. As the
appellants have not separately argued any of the claims so rejected apart from the other claims
included in this rejection, we again select claim 45 as the representative claim, with the
remainder of the claims so rejected standing or falling with claim 45. Blake discloses a quick
change sheet 20 comprising a top panel 21 having an upper surface formed of absorbent
material, such as a soft fabric, for comfort (col. 4, ll. 22-24) and a bottom panel 22. The top and
bottom panels are releasably interconnected by washable, reusable, releasable fasteners, such as
strips of hook (25) and loop (32) fasteners, as illustrated in Figure 2. The fasteners are not
positioned as called for in claim 45. The examiner’s position in making the rejection is that it
would have been obvious, in view of the teachings of Ghanem, to modify Blake “by providing a
continuous fastener so that the sheet is securely attached on all sides to the securing layer”
(answer, p. 6).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007