Appeal No. 2006-1587
Application No. 10/020,768
Appellant argues that these claims require a glass fiber content
of less than 50% by weight (id.).
We have addressed these arguments above with respect to
Heidweiller and have found them unconvincing. For this reason
and because Appellant has not contested the Examiner’s proposed
combination of Heidweiller and Helwig ‘843, we affirm this
rejection for the reasons given above.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Heidweiller in view of
Kinsley
Claims 20 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Heidweiller in view of Kinsley.
The Examiner cites Kinsley for the limitation requiring
polyvinyl alcohol in powder form with a particle size of 50-250
microns (Answer, page 10). The Examiner states that Kinsley’s
“preferred binder is a polyvinyl alcohol powder . . . [with] a
dry size diameter of 88-220 microns and a swollen size diameter
of 176-440 microns” (Answer, page 10). According to the
Examiner, “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made to use a binder
with a dry size diameter of 88-220 microns as suggested by
Kinsley, Jr. in the invention of Heidweiller motivated by the
expectation of successfully practicing the invention of
Heidweiller” (Answer, page 10). The Examiner acknowledges that
the combination of Heidweiller and Kinsley “discloses the
claimed invention except for that the base web has about 10 to
less than 50% by weight of glass fibers” as required by claim 22
(id.). The Examiner states “that the weight percentage of glass
-13-
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007