Appeal No. 97-0056 Page 7
Application No. 07/791,156
consequently, the ordinary procedure in the prior art is to
search for adhesive-compatible coatings rather than to treat
specific areas is likewise unpersuasive. As noted above, the
claim language does not preclude the application of an
adhesive-compatible anti-fray or other treatment composition
to the entire fabric followed by application of an adhesive.
For the reasons discussed above, we shall sustain the
examiner's rejection of representative claim 59 and of claims
57, 58 and 60, which stand or fall therewith.
With regard to claim 57, we note the "single fabric
density" limitation. Further, we acknowledge the appellants'
recognition that the inventive fabric of Duval comprises
higher density portions where the adhesive is to be applied
and intermediate portions (16) of lesser density (brief, page
3). However, we also note that the appellants have not argued
that provision of a single density fabric is a patentably
distinguishing feature of the appellants' claimed invention.
In fact, the appellants have expressly stated that the fabric
of the appellants' invention may be of "uniform density
throughout, or of any varying density as a user might select"
(brief, pages 3 and 4). Rather, the appellants have argued
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007