Appeal 2007-2214
Application 10/032,383
Kuen with hooks instead of loops since it has been held that a mere reversal
of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the
art” (Answer 8). In particular, the Examiner argues that the claims do not
require “covering the entire surface of the strap with hooks” (id. at 10-11)
and that, “even if the material of Kuen only extended the width of the article
as it does in figure 1, this may be considered as extending continuously” (id.
at 11).
Appellants argue that Kuen fails
to show or suggest an absorbent article that includes a single
piece fastener having a continuously extending active fastening
surface in which a first portion of the fastener fastens to landing
material located at a first waist region of the article and a
second portion of the fastener fastens to landing material
located a second waist region of the article, wherein the active
fastening material comprises a plurality of hooks and the
landing material comprises a plurality of loops.
(Br. 13.) Although Kuen discloses “that the strap . . . may . . . have hook
patches 56 at the ends of the strap,” the “hook patches do not cover the
entire active surface of the strap” (id.). In addition, “[i]f the entire active
surface of the strap were covered with hooks, the hooks along the portion of
the strap between the front and back of the garment (e.g., exposed to the
wearer) would rub against and irritate the wearer” (id. at 14). Thus,
Appellants conclude that “one would not be motivated by Kuen et al. to
cover the entire active surface of the strap with a plurality of hooks” (id.).
We reverse the rejection of claims 7 and 35. We agree with the
Examiner that the claims do not require that the entire surface of the fastener
be covered with active fastening material, e.g., hooks. However, as
discussed above, the claims do require that an active fastening surface
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013