Appeal No. 1997-1491
Application No. 08/478,167
appellants' burden to establish on this record that there is a
patentable distinction between insulation within the scope of
the appealed claims and the insulation of Saborsky that is cut
into strips. However, appellants have not advanced any
objective evidence or compelling line reasoning which
establishes that there is a meaningful difference between cut
and uncut insulation which both comprise binderless fibrous
material of substantially
long fibers. We find no factual support in the Saborsky
disclosure for appellants' argument that Saborsky's fibers are
"long" only before they are cut (page 13 of brief).
Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
We will also sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 6,
8-13, 15 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Saborsky in view of
Sens for essentially those reasons expressed by the examiner.
We agree with the examiner that it would have been a matter of
obviousness for one of ordinary skill in the art to select the
density of the insulation based upon its ultimate use.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007