Appeal 2006-3343
Application 10/372,564
1 There is no evidence that the claim elements are anything other than
2 the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
3 functions. We find that the Appellant has substituted a known fabric (a
4 stabilizing non-woven interfacing fabric) into a known apparatus (a fitted
5 sheet) in a known manner. The combination of familiar elements according
6 to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield
7 predictable results. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
8 Accordingly, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in
9 determining that Chamberlain and Denesuk would have rendered claim 1
10 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
11 The Appellant raises separate issues with regard to claims 3 and 9.
12 She asserts for claim 3 that both Chamberlain and Denesuk fail to disclose a
13 “heavy weight non-woven stabilized non-stretch garment interfacing fabric”
14 and for claim 9 that Chamberlain and Denesuk fail to disclose a
15 “conventional garment interfacing fabric.” Merely pointing out what claims
16 cover is not a separate argument for patentability. See 37 C.F.R. §
17 41.37(c)(vii).
18 Furthermore, the term “garment interfacing fabric” does not add any
19 structural limitations. It is simply a statement of one possible end use for a
20 material, which material encompasses the polyester nonwoven of Denesuk.
21 The intended use of an apparatus is not a relevant limitation with respect to
22 the patentability of the structure defined in an apparatus claim. In re
23 Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959, 177 USPQ 705, 706 (CCPA 1973).
24 Accordingly, this argument is unpersuasive.
25 We therefore affirm this rejection as it relates to claims 1-9 and 11-14.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013