Appeal No. 1997-0998
Application 08/251,494
The examiner’s analysis is in error for two reasons. First,
the examiner has not provided evidence or convincing reasons
why the “long chain polymer” of Franz would have acted or
functioned as a sealant. Second, the examiner has not shown,
by evidence or convincing reasons, that any amount of water
and “long chain polymer” inherently included on the wet edges
of the cut in Franz would have had a sealing effect such as
“to encapsulate dust and short length fibers” as required by
claim 1 on appeal, not just “some sealing effect” as stated by
the examiner (Answer, page 5, emphasis added).
Mercer was applied by the examiner to show that high
velocity liquid jet cutters have been used to cut fiberglass
resins (Answer, page 3). Gerber has been applied by the
examiner to show the conventional use of compressed air
streams to compress and harden limp material to enable a high
velocity cutting jet to produce a sharper and more accurate
cut (Answer, page 4). Neither reference remedies the
deficiencies of the Franz reference and the examiner’s
reasoning as discussed above.
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the examiner
has not met the initial burden of establishing a prima facie
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007