Ex Parte Porter et al - Page 3



                Appeal 2006-2299                                                                               
                Application 10/615,671                                                                         

                      The § 102/§ 103 rejection over Kobayashi is premised on the                              
                Examiner’s position that Patentee’s fabric-reinforced resin product                            
                corresponds to the fabric reinforcement with resinous coating as defined by                    
                the rejected claims (Answer 3).  However, Kobayashi’s product constitutes a                    
                laminated composite board (col. 4, ll. 63-64).  As correctly argued by                         
                Appellants, this composite board cannot be properly regarded as the here-                      
                claimed fabric reinforcement since the prior art board is not expressly or                     
                inherently disclosed as having the flexibility and drapability characteristics                 
                ascribed to the fabric reinforcement (Specification 8 and 15).  Stated                         
                differently, it is not reasonable and consistent with the Specification to                     
                interpret Appellants’ claimed fabric reinforcement as encompassing the                         
                composite board of Kobayashi.                                                                  
                      The § 102/§ 103 rejection also is based on the Examiner’s belief that                    
                Appellants’ claimed coating weight distribution ratio is inherently disclosed                  
                by, or alternatively would have been obvious over, Kobayashi (Answer 3-4).                     
                This position is based on figure 2 of Kobayashi showing greater breadth of                     
                warp fibers compared to weft fibers (Answer 10).  However, Appellants’                         
                claimed distribution ratio is not based on the relative breadth of yarn and the                
                resinous coating thereon.  Instead, it is based on the weight of coating                       
                divided by the weight of yarn (Specification 3).  For this reason, the relative                
                breadth of the warp and weft yarns is irrelevant to the coating weight                         
                distribution ratio.                                                                            


                                                      3                                                        



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013