Appeal 2006-2014
Application 09/745,006
Figure 8, Schaar discloses at column 5, lines 9-24 that “the pleats of the end
of the diaper have been ‘completely unfolded’” (Br. 11).
We cannot sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection over Schaar in
view of Sauer, Igaue, and Foreman of claims 2-7, 9-14, and 18.
Appellant’s claim feature, “. . . pleats define a pocket between the flap
sheet and the body-side liner for the collection of fecal matter . . .” is neither
disclosed nor suggested by Schaar, Igaue, Foreman, and Sauer. Schaar uses
pleats that disappear upon full expansion of the diaper for placement on the
user (Schaar Figure 8, col. 5, ll. 9-24). Foreman discloses a diaper using
separate flaps to form longitudinally extending side flaps, not a “pocket”
having “pleats” for retaining fecal matter (Foreman, col. 3, ll. 45-63). Igaue
discloses a diaper having side flaps that form a pocket but does not disclose
the pocket having “pleats” (Igaue, col. 3, ll. 44-47). Sauer disclose a waist
flap 60 but does not disclose a pocket having pleats (Sauer, 13, ll. 5-10).
Moreover, there would be no suggestion or motivation for combining
Schaar’s pleats with either Foreman’s flap, Igaue’s flap or Sauer’s waist flap
because Schaar discloses that pleats are removed when the diaper is fully
expanded for placement on the user (Schaar, Figure 8, col. 5, ll. 9-24).
Because none of the references cited by the Examiner teach or suggest
the above claim feature, the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness. To establish prima facie obviousness of a claimed
invention, all the claim limitations must be taught or suggested by the prior
art. In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 984-85 180 USPQ 580, 582-83 (CCPA
1974).
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims
2-7, 9-14, and 18 over Schaar in view of Sauer, Igaue, and Foreman.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013