Appeal 2007-1323
Application 10/032,701
inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine
experimentation.”
The evidence on this record establishes that both Appellants and Igaue
introduced perforations into their diapers along a line of weakness to allow
the diaper to be easily removed from the wearer (cf. Specification 2 and
Igaue 10-11). In our opinion, it was well within the ordinary skill in this art
to establish the optimum tear strength, as set forth in Appellants’ claim, by
routine experimentation. For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness.
In response, Appellants assert that “[t]he tear strength can depend on
many parameters, including . . . the type of material and the configuration of
the line of weakness” (Br. 8; Reply Br. 3). We are not persuaded. As
discussed above, the materials used in Igaue’s diaper are the same as those
in Appellants’ diaper. Further, as discussed above, we find that optimization
of the configuration for the line of weakness, to allow the diaper to be easily
removed from the wearer, is well within the level of a person of ordinary
skill in the art.
We recognize Appellants’ assertion “that the claimed ranges achieve
unexpected results, namely that the web can be weakened to a point where a
user can easily break the panel along a line of weakness.” We are not
persuaded that this result was unexpected. As Igaue explains, “cutting lines
are formed [in the material] by intermittent cuts or perforations” (Igaue 3).
These cutting lines allow the diaper to be easily removed from the wearer by
tearing the front panel away from the rear panel along the cutting lines
(Igaue 10-11). Accordingly, we find that Igaue clearly teaches Appellants’
alleged unexpected result.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013