Appeal No. 2001-0159
Application 08/936,724
invention which was not a characteristic of the commercially
available products. The examiner’s argument (answer, page 9)
that because the JP ‘849 mat is covered on all sides, the
appellants’ increased market share must be due to another factor
such as price differential, an efficient distribution network,
brand loyalty or an incentive such as a warranty, is not
supported by the evidence of record.
The examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness is based upon
the disclosure in JP ‘849 of a heat-bonded covered mat, the
teaching by Sens of use of either heat bonding or adhesive to
join synthetic resin flaps around a glass fiber mat (col. 6,
lines 40-54), the teaching by Sowinski of using a hot melt
adhesive for sealing the edges of a polyethylene film used to
form a tubular container for joint compound slurry (col. 1,
lines 4-7; col. 2, line 46 - col. 3, line 7), and the teaching by
Sack of using either heat sealing or adhesives or cements to seal
the periphery of bandages (col. 1, lines 25-26; col. 3, lines 69-
72; col. 4, lines 37-42). This prima facie case is sufficiently
weak that it is overcome by the above-discussed evidence of
commercial success. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of
claim 1 and claims 4, 6 and 15 which depend therefrom.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007