Appeal No. 1997-1491
Application No. 08/478,167
references.1
Finally, we will sustain the examiner's new ground of
rejection of claim 5 under § 103 over the collective teachings
of Saborsky and Irwin. We find no error in the examiner's
reasoning that, based on Irwin, it would have been obvious for
one of ordinary skill in the art to use irregularly-shaped
fibers in the insulation of Saborsky. Significantly, as noted
above, appellants state at page 5 of the brief that claim 5
stands or falls together with claim 1, and appellants' brief
does not present a separate argument for claim 5. Also,
appellants have not responded to the examiner's new ground of
rejection of claim 5. Furthermore, it would appear from page
11 of appellants' specification that irregularly-shaped glass
fibers were known in
the art at the time of filing the present application (see
page 11, first paragraph).
As a final point, we note that appellants base no
This new ground of rejection changed the status of claim 18, which was1
objected to by the examiner. Appellants have not responded to this rejection.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007