Appeal 2007-0254
Application 10/732,614
operating conditions of the process (col. 6, ll. 6-14). Finally, Appellants’
argument is contrary to their own disclosure which expressly teaches making
the claimed material using Kennedy’s process with nonwoven fabrics or
webs of the type taught by Lawless and defined by appealed claim 1
(compare Appellants’ Fig. 1 disclosure with Kennedy’s Fig. 2 disclosure).2
An artisan would have reasonably believed that the nonwoven fabrics
of Lawless would be successfully laminated to molded hooks with the
process of Kennedy in view of Kennedy’s teaching that his process may be
practiced with nonwoven fabrics that are light or heavy, thin or thick, dense
or open. Specifically, the artisan would have reasonably expected that
flooding of Lawless’ nonwoven fabric would be avoided by appropriately
selecting the result-effective parameters taught by Kennedy such as the
plastic for forming the fastener and the operating conditions of the process.
This determination is reinforced by the fact that Appellants’ Specification
explicitly refers to Kennedy as teaching a process for making the here-
claimed material.
We are convinced by these circumstances that a reasonable
expectation of success exists for the Examiner’s proposed combination of
the Lawless and Kennedy teachings. Therefore, the record before us, on
2 At least indirectly, this argument militates for a conclusion that the
Specification would not enable an artisan to make the claim 1 material with
Kennedy’s process. Therefore, if Appellants adhere to their argument in any
future prosecution that may occur, the Examiner should consider rejecting
the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 1st ¶, as being based on a disclosure which
fails to satisfy the enablement requirement.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013