Appeal 2007-2214
Application 10/032,383
With regard to claims 15 and 30, the Examiner argues that it would
have been obvious “to modify the first and second shear strength of Kuen in
order to determine the most effective product since it has been held that
where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art,
discovering . . . optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in
the art” (Answer 8). We agree.
Appellants argue that claim 15 depends “directly or indirectly from
claim 7 and [is] submitted to [be] non-obvious . . . for the same reasons as
claim 7” (Br. 14). Similarly, Appellants argue that claim 30 “depends
directly or indirectly from claim 55 and is submitted to be non-obvious . . .
for the reasons set forth [for] . . . claim 55” (id.). However, claim 15
actually depends from claim 12. Because we have affirmed the § 102
rejection over Kuen of claims 12 and 55, on which claims 15 and 30
respectively depend, we are not persuaded by these arguments.
We conclude that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie case that
claims 15 and 30 would have been obvious over Kuen, which Appellants
have not rebutted. We therefore affirm the rejection of claims 15 and 30
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
OTHER ISSUES
U.S. Patent No. 5,720,740 to Thomas (of record) describes a
disposable diaper having a fastening system for maintaining a first waist
portion and a second waist portion in an overlapping configuration (Thomas,
col. 24, ll. 41-45). The fastening system has a manufacturer’s end and a
user’s end and includes an array of prongs (id. at col. 26, ll. 22-54). The
fastening system engages a receiving surface, which is a “stitch bonded,
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013