Appeal No. 2006-1769
Application No. 09/784,292
members are releasably connected to the chassis. (Appellants’ Brief,
p. 7). In their reply brief, the appellants further argued that the
permanently connected areas in Keuhn, Jr. and Sauer, benefit from a
larger bond area or surface area connection for a stronger, more
permanent connection between the strap member and the back waist
member, whereas, a less permanent, releasable connection between
the strap member and front waist region is suitably provided by a strap
member having parallel waist and leg edges. (Appellants’ Reply
Brief, p. 3).
We disagree with the appellants’ positions. With regard to the
argument that the permanently connected area in Sauer benefits from a
larger bond area connection for a stronger, more permanent
connection between the strap member and the back waist member, this
argument does not hold true when one considers the elliptical-shaped
strap member taught by Sauer. In that embodiment, each end of the
elliptical-shaped strap member would have a bond area of the same
size, and the center of the strap member would be larger than the ends.
As such, the permanently attached end would have a bond area the
same size as the refastenable strap end, just as in the rectangular-
shaped strap embodiment. In contrast to the rectangular-shaped strap
embodiment, however, in the elliptical-shaped strap embodiment, the
waist edge and the leg edge would be non-parallel.
-11-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007