Appeal 2007-1015
Application 10/011,088
distinguishing representative claim 31 over the applied references are
without merit.
It follows that we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 31-33 and 36-38 over Blenke in view of Widlund and Newkirk.
REMAND
We remand this application to the Examiner to consider whether a
§ 103(a) rejection of any or all of claims 3-6, 19-24, 34, 35, and 39-41
should be entered over the combined teachings of Blenke in view of
Widlund with or without Newkirk. For example, we note that dependent
claim 3 requires that “each of the first and second longitudinal sides of the
chassis is a straight edge” and dependent claim 4 requires that “at least one
of the first and second leg elastic members is an elastic film material.” The
Examiner should consider introducing a 103(a) rejection of claim 3 over
Blenke in view of Widlund, and the Examiner should consider introducing a
103(a) rejection of claim 4 over Blenke in view of Widlund and Newkirk in
light of our determinations herein. Similarly, the Examiner should review
claims 5, 6, 19-24, 34, 35, and 39-41 and determine whether these claims
would have been obvious over Blenke in view of Widlund with or without
Newkirk and any other prior art the Examiner may be aware of in light of
our determinations herein.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 2, 7-18, 26, 27, 29, and
30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Blenke in view of
Widlund; to reject claims 25 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Blenke in view of Widlund and Newkirk; and to reject
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013