Appeal No. 2006-1587
Application No. 10/020,768
same successful properties as Heidweiller’s 50% polyethylene
terephthalate fiber amount. Id.
Appellant’s arguments regarding claim 17 also mirror the
arguments for claims 13 and 14. We refer to our discussion
above.
Claim 18 was not separately argued and, therefore, stands
or falls with claim 17.
In light of the foregoing, it is our ultimate determination
that the reference evidence adduced by the Examiner establishes
a prima facie case of obviousness which the Appellant has failed
to successfully rebut with argument or evidence of
nonobviousness. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Accordingly, we hereby
sustain this rejection of claims 1 through 8, 11, 13 through 18
and 21 as being unpatentable over Heidweiller.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Heidweiller in view of
Helwig ‘843
Claims 19, 22 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Heidweiller in view of Helwig
‘843.
The Examiner cites Helwig ‘843 to meet the limitation of
claims 19 and 22 of a polyvinyl alcohol binder in the form of a
Comment [s8]: The corrected the
fiber having “a diameter of [from] about 6 to 16 microns and a quote from starting with having to “a”,
inserted the missing text in brackets and
length of about 4 to about 25mm” (Answer, page 7). According to correct the no. of mm from 12 to 25.
the Examiner, “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use
binder fibers with a length of 4mm and a fiber diameter of 12
-11-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007