Appeal 2007-0283
Application 09/849,594
of the bond points in each of the rows is equally spaced apart from at least
three other bond points, and the bond points in adjacent rows are offset from
one another; and
displacing portions of each layer of material, wherein each of the
displaced portions is in contact with at least one other displaced portion.
The Examiner relies on the evidence in these references:
Bridges US 5,624,420 Apr. 29, 1997
Kielpikowski EP 0 677 248 A1 Oct. 18, 1995
Appellants request review of the following ground of rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (Br. 2-3) advanced on appeal:
claims 1, 3 through 10, 12 through 16, 18 through 29, 31, and 32 as
unpatentable over Bridges in view of Kielpikowski (Answer 3-4).
Appellants argue independent claims 1, 14, and 27 as a group, claims
1 and 27 as a group, and claim 14 individually (Br. 3 and 7). Thus, we
decide this appeal based on appealed claims claim 1, 14, and 27 with the
dependent claims standing or falling together with the respective
independent claim. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (September 2004).
The Examiner contends Bridges would have disclosed ultrasonically
bonding together at least partially overlapping first and second liquid-
impermeable layers with at least two offset parallel rows of equally spaced
ultrasonic bond points, in which the bond points can be spaced 0.01 inch
apart, in constructing, inter alia, diapers (Answer 3, citing, inter alia,
Fig. 1E). The Examiner finds “Bridges does not teach that at least one of the
bond points in each of the rows is equally spaced apart from at least three
other bond points” but discloses “the size, shape and spacing of the bonds
may be varied by those of ordinary skill in the art in order to balance . . .
strength” and permit tearing (id. 3-4). The Examiner contends Kielpikowski
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013