Appeal No. 2006-1769
Application No. 09/784,292
shapes disclosed in Keuhn, Jr. and/or Sauer to the garment of Kuen
‘162 in view of the suggestion in Kuen ‘162 to use strap members of
different shapes. We thus conclude that based on these teachings of
the prior art, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention would have viewed the subject matter of claims 1, 21 and 34
as a whole to have been obvious in view of the prior art.
B. Dependent Claims 5 and 8
With respect to dependent claims 5 and 8, the examiner
interpreted the claim limitation “wipe material” as including a cloth or
paper because such materials are capable of use as a wipe. The
examiner noted that Kuen ‘162 discloses that the side panels are made
of a cloth material. (Examiner’s Answer, p. 5, see also Kuen ‘162,
col. 10, line 50 – col. 11, line 52). As such, the examiner rejected
these dependent claims as obvious over Kuen ‘162 in view of Keuhn,
Jr. and Sauer.
The appellants argue that their use of the term “wipe” refers to a
well-known term of art meaning absorbent wipes often used in
conjunction with the changing of a soiled absorbent garment.
(Appellants’ Brief, p. 8). In the reply brief, however, the appellants
do not similarly limit their interpretation of “wipe material” to
“absorbent” wipes. Rather, the appellants’ assert, “the term ‘wipe
-15-
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007