Appeal No. 96-3543
Application No. 08/153,623
and warp members connected to the border sections are then set
forth. The paragraph in issue states “the weft members being
connected at one end thereof along said first border length
[sic, section] and said warp members being connected at one
end thereof along said fourth border length.” The explanation
that follows relates the weft and warp members to one another
and to the other border sections. However, as one proceeds
through this paragraph, it would appear that the terms “weft”
and “warp” have been interchanged throughout, noting that line
51 states that “said first warp member is downwardly turned,”
when in fact it seems to be the first weft member that is
downwardly turned at this point.The Examiner’s Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Notwithstanding the new rejection that we have entered
above, we find ourselves able to understand the invention to
the extent necessary to evaluate the examiner’s rejections of
the claims, and we have done so in the interest of judicial
economy. The test for obviousness is what the combined
teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art. See, for example, In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). In
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007