Appeal No. 2005-2481
Application No. 10/075,096
polypropylene (e.g., see the paragraph bridging pages 3 and 4 of
the answer). The examiner’s belief is meritless.
There is absolutely no basis for considering the polypro-
pylene layer disclosed by Berlit as a porous fabric. Based on
the reference disclosure, this layer need not be either a porous
material or a fabric material. It could, for example, be in the
form of a nonporous polypropylene film. Analogously, no basis
exists for considering Berlit’s polypropylene layer as possessing
the root-tip-trapping capability claimed by the appellant.
For the above stated reasons, we cannot sustain the
examiner’s § 102 rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 13-16, 18, 19, 29,
30, 41, 46, 48, 49, 53 and 63 as being anticipated by Berlit.
The examiner has not attempted to cure the above discussed
deficiency of Berlit in any of the § 103 rejections before us. Under
these circumstances, we also cannot sustain any of the examiner’s
§ 103 rejections.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007