Appeal 2007-1015
Application 10/011,088
combine the elements” in the manner claimed. KSR Int’l Co. Teleflex, Inc.,
127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
We reverse the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection over Widlund alone and
the two § 103(a) rejections over Widlund in view of Newkirk given our
determinations respecting Widlund’s teachings above with regard to the
anticipation rejection. This is because the Examiner has not otherwise
identified a persuasive rationale in light of the teachings of Widlund alone or
in combination with Newkirk that would have taught or suggested or
otherwise led one of ordinary skill in the art to an article including the
claimed features with respect to a biaxially extensible outer cover, a
biaxially extensible bodyside liner, and first and second leg elastic members
captured thereby, as further specified by all of the so rejected claims.
Our disposition of the Examiner’s obviousness rejections employing
Blenke in combination with Widlund and Blenke in combination with
Widlund and Newkirk is another matter as set forth below.
Appellants argue rejected claims 2, 7-18, 26, 27, 29, and 30 together
as a group. Accordingly, we select claim 2 as the representative claim on
which we shall decide this appeal as to the obviousness rejection over
Blenke in view of Widlund.
Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s basic determination that
Blenke teaches or suggests an absorbent article corresponding to that
required by representative claim 2 but for the claim requirement for a
straight edge on at least one of the first and second longitudinal sides of the
absorbent article chassis in the crotch area (Answer 8, Br. 13-15). Rather,
Appellants’ principal dispute with the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 7-
18, 26, 27, 29, and 30 over Blenke taken with Widlund centers on an alleged
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013