Appeal 2007-0254
Application 10/732,614
ordinary skill in this art to provide the opposite side of Lawless’ base layer
with molded stems or hooks via the process taught by Kennedy, motivated
by the desire to obtain a known unitary back-to-back hook and loop fastener
product (Answer 4).
The Appellants argue that the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness
is incorrect for the following reason:
[O]ne of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
would not have reasonably expected to successfully form a
dual-sided fastener using Kennedy’s process for forming a
fastener product with exposed, engageable loops with the
substitution of a non-woven web of entangled fibers as taught
by Lawless with a basis weight of about 1.8 to 2.5 ounces, for
Kennedy’s dense loop web. Instead, the teachings of Kennedy
would have led someone of ordinary skill in this art, at the time
of the invention, to expect that such light non-woven materials
would be flooded by the hook-molding process to such an
extent that they would not remain engageable.
(Br. 9, first full para.).
Issue
Would one with ordinary skill in this art have reasonably expected
success in combining the teachings of Lawless and Kennedy in the manner
proposed by the Examiner?
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013