Appeal No. 2000-2013
Application No. 08/766,544
The examiner has also not supplied any convincing evidence or
reasoning to support the conclusion that it would have been obvious
to omit the solvent softening step and provide a heat softening
step due to economic and environmental considerations (Answer, page
5). The examiner has not factually established that the solvent
emissions would have been harmful to the atmosphere or that heating
is more economical than use of a solvent bath.
The examiner has applied Doleman for the teaching of forming a
thermoplastic web backing from the same material as the upstanding
projections (Answer, page 5). Accordingly, Doleman does not remedy
the deficiencies discussed above in Hamano.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Brief and
Reply Brief, we determine that the examiner has failed to establish
a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the reference
evidence. Therefore the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) cannot be sustained.
C. Summary
The rejection of claims 17-21, 26 and 27 under the first
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is reversed. The rejection of claims
17-21, 26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hamano in view of
Doleman is reversed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007