Appeal 2007-1323
Application 10/032,701
persuaded by these arguments. Appellants’ only other argument relates the
processing of the article on a manufacturing line (Br. 12-13). We note,
however, that the claims do not contain any particular process requirements.
Accordingly, we do not find this argument persuasive. Accordingly, we
affirm the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claim 35 falls
together with claim 16.
The combination of Igaue and Van Gompel:
Claims 42, 44, 47, and 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Igaue and Van Gompel. The claims
have not been argued separately and therefore stand or fall together.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Therefore, we limit our discussion to
representative claim 42.
Claim 42 is drawn to an absorbent garment. The garment comprises,
inter alia, a body panel having a tear strength of less than about 5 lbf along
said line of weakness and “front and rear body panels having terminal crotch
edges spaced apart to define a gap and an absorbent composite bridging the
gap and connected to the panels” (Answer 5).
The Examiner relies on Igaue to teach a garment with “a unitary front
and rear connected to an absorbent composite with a tearable line of
weakness adjacent a side seam” (Answer 5). The Examiner relies on Van
Gompel to teach an
open type diaper or pants type garment designed with a unitary
front and rear connected to an absorbent composite or with
front and rear panels having terminal crotch edges spaced apart
to define a gap, i.e. nonunitary front and rear panels, and an
absorbent composite bridging the gap and connected to the
panels.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013