Appeal No. 2000-2013
Application No. 08/766,544
teaches the use of rods to maintain the upstanding position of the
rows of loops. Furthermore, appellants teach that, due to the
qualities of molecular orientation of the thermoplastic material,
the stems of the presently claimed projections “remain erect during
the deforming step g) which preferably involves the application of
heat to the stem tips.” See the specification, page 5, ll. 25-32.
Accordingly, we determine that these teachings from the original
disclosure would have reasonably conveyed to one of ordinary skill
in this art that appellants were in possession of the claimed
process without the need for any supports for the projections.
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the examiner has
not met the initial burden of establishing failure to fulfill the
written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Accordingly,
the rejection of claims 17-21, 26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, is reversed.
B. The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The examiner finds that Hamano discloses the “basic claimed
process” with the exception, as discussed above, that Hamano
teaches the use of rods or mandrels as supports for the loops or
projections (Answer, page 4). The examiner further finds that
Hamano teaches moving a web backing into a gap without any supports
for the projections, although this feature is taught in an
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007