Appeal 2007-1323
Application 10/032,701
Aller. 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 tensile 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. Accordingly, we
affirm the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claim 45 falls
together with claim 14.
Claim 16:
Claim 16 depends from and further limits claim 11 to comprise a
fastener member bridging the line of weakness. According to claim 16, the
fastener member is fixedly secured to the body panel on one side of the line
of weakness and is releasably engaged with the body panel on the other side
of the line of weakness. The Examiner relies on Igaue as set forth above
(Answer 3-5). In addition, we note that Igaue teaches a diaper comprising a
fastener member bridging the line of weakness (Igaue 5 and Figure 1).
Igaue’s fastener member “may be a piece of tape having thereon a plurality
of hooks such as Velcro (trademark) or Magic Tape (trademark) both of
which are well known to those skilled in the art” (Igaue 9). In our opinion, a
person of ordinary skill in the art would realize that Igaue’s fastener member
is releasably engaged with the body panel on the other side of the line of
weakness.
Appellants assert that their arguments regarding claim 11 apply to
claim 14 as well (Br. 12). For the reasons set forth above, we are not
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013