Appeal No. 97-4161
Application 08/397,408
Finally, we do not agree with the examiner that the
“dots” disclosed in Bauernfeind ‘728, which are for the
purpose of pressing the plies together over such an area that
they are adequately laminated, qualify as being “pin-like
displacements” as required by the claims. The preparatory
pattern is defined in the specification as being “relatively
fine” (pages 3, 4) “pin like projections” (page 5), numbering
between 35 and 400 to the square inch of web (page 5), which
indicates that each is of small cross-sectional area. This is
confirmed by the drawings (Figures 6 and 7). Moreover, the
common definition of “pin” is a small and pointed object3
which, as shown in Figures 4 and 9 of the reference, the “dot”
is not.
For the reasons set forth above, it is our view that
Bauernfeind ‘728 fails to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to the subject matter recited in
independent claims 1 and 11. This being the case, we will not
sustain this rejection.
Claims 1 and 11 also stand rejected as being unpatentable
3See, for example, Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth
Edition, 1996, page 882.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007