Appeal No. 96-3726
Application No. 08/074,009
instantly claimed ranges in order to maximize the leather-like
touch desired by the patent” (answer, page 5).
It is important to here clarify that the Wagner patent
contains no teaching of the desirability or mechanism for
achieving a “leather-like touch” as the examiner seems to
believe. Instead, as previously indicated, patentee teaches
providing a substrate with “the aesthetic appeal of leather”
via the use of a polyurethane film which exhibits permeability
or “breathability” (e.g., see lines 8 through 24 in column 1
and lines 3 through 10 in column 2). The record presented to
us by the examiner contains nothing to support a belief that
Wagner’s polyurethane film which possesses the characteristics
of “breathability” and “the aesthetic appeal of leather” would
necessarily and inherently also possess the characteristics of
the “leather-like touch” and the properties recited in the
independent claims on appeal. Stated otherwise, the
examiner’s implicit presumption that Wagner’s film possesses
the characteristic of a “leather-like touch” and thus
inherently possesses the here claimed properties which produce
this characteristic constitutes mere conjecture on the
examiner’s part. This is plainly inadequate to support the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007