Appeal 2007-0784
Application 10/304,239
substantially the entire closed portion of each loop being
secured to the substrate.
The reference set forth below is relied upon by the Examiner as
evidence of anticipation:
Mishima US 6,197,012 B1 Mar. 6, 2001
All of the appealed claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or (e)
as being anticipated by Mishima (Answer 3-6).1 The Examiner finds that
Mishima’s adhesive 23 (fig. 3; col. 3, ll. 33-49; para. bridging col. 3-4) fully
satisfies the elastic member limitations of independent claims 1 and 46
(Answer 3-6).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1
Appellants argue that “the adhesive 23 of Mishima . . . clearly does
not extend generally longitudinally of the substrate as recited in claim 1”
(Appeal Br. 5). In response, the Examiner “maintains that the elastic
adhesive 23 of Mishima has at least some portion that extends in a
longitudinal/vertical direction of the substrate since the loop that forms the
elastic adhesive 23 has a longitudinal/vertical component” (Answer 7).
Concerning this point, the Examiner states that:
Appellant defines [sic, Appellants define] the “elastic axis” as
the x-axis that extends longitudinally within the training pants
(specification, page 13, lines 24-27) [, and] [t]hus the claim
1 In the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, Appellants have argued only claims 1
and 46, the sole independent claims on appeal, with any reasonable
specificity. Accordingly, the remaining dependent claims on appeal will
stand or fall pursuant to the success or failure of the independent claim
arguments.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013