Appeal No. 96-4193
Application No. 08/267,049
without damage” (Answer, page 4). However, the examiner does
not specifically identify why the artisan would have used the
protective “modified cellulose fiber” lining of Vogt in
addition to the two lining materials of Takemae while keeping
both types of cellulose fibers together and entangled.
The examiner additionally applies the Howey reference
against claim 4 for the disclosure of using a rubber based
binder but this reference does not cure the deficiencies noted
above. Howey discloses a web of nonwoven synthetic fibers
which are thermally spot welded to form the basic liner fabric
(column 3, lines 59-62). Howey exemplifies many types of
fibers including cellulosic fibers but does not disclose or
teach refined cellulose fibers (see column 4, lines 6-10;
lines 31-33; and column 6, lines 9-25).
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the examiner
has not established a prima facie case of obviousness in view
of the applied prior art. Accordingly, the rejection of
claims 1 through 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Takemae in view of Vogt is reversed. The rejection of claim 4
under § 103
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007