Appeal No. 96-0644
Application No. 08/056,721
The method of appealed claim 1 requires three steps
(steps (a), (b) and (c)) for bonding a curing accelerator to
certain textile fibers before the fiber is mixed with rubber
and cured (steps (d) and (e))(see the specification, page 4,
lines 1-14). The elastomeric matrix product of appealed claim
6 requires high density crosslinking which corresponds to the
presence of textile fibers which have been surface treated
with cure accelerator.
The examiner cites Edwards for the disclosure of “fibers
in rubber” (answer, page 3). The examiner further cites
Boustany for the suggestion of “cellulose fibers in a rubber
matrix” and “[f]iber orientation ... in the rubber matrix”
(Id.). “It is well settled that the examiner bears the
initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness
based on the disclosures of the applied prior art references.”
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed.
Cir. 1992). Appellants argue that the art cited by the
examiner does not teach or suggest the method steps claimed
(brief, page 3, last sentence). We find that the examiner has
failed to point out any disclosure or teaching of the claimed
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007