Appeal No. 2002-1002
Application No. 08/820,506
an attachment structure into the nonwoven. See Examiner’s
answer, page 7. However, the examiner maintains that “[o]ne of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
incorporate the attachment structure such as an opening in order
to allow the nonwoven to be fitted into a particularly shaped
space.”
In order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the
examiner must make “particular findings . . . as to the
reasons a skilled artisan with no knowledge of the claimed
invention” would have made the proposed modification to the prior
art to achieve the claimed invention. In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d at
1371, 55 USPQ2d at 1317. The examiner has again failed to make
the requisite findings in support of his position that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify
Lochner to include an attachment structure. See, supra, pages 6-
8. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 16, 18 and 19 as
unpatentable over Lochner is reversed.
In sum, the rejections of claim 14 as anticipated by McCord
and as unpatentable over McCord and Lochner are affirmed. The
rejection of claim 16 as unpatentable over McCord is reversed.
The rejection of claim 17 as unpatentable over McCord in view of
Pecora is reversed. The rejection of claims 15, 16 and 18-19 as
unpatentable over Lochner is reversed.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007