Appeal No. 1997-3119
Application No. 08/216,221
We reverse the rejections of appellant’s claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning in support of this conclusion
appears below.
Each of independent claims 1 and 8 is drawn to a
breathable, decorative, wall covering with the specified 3
feature of, inter alia, a moisture permeability of from about
25 perms to about 50 perms.
The examiner has concluded that the claimed invention
would have been obvious in light of each of three separate
prior art teachings, which references we treat individually
below.
A reading of the Bodrogi reference reveals the teaching
of a stain resistant wall covering that can include a
plastisol composition and a nonwoven backing. Considered as a
whole, however, we do not find therein a suggestion for a
nonwoven substrate having an array of hydroentangled fibers
3The reference to “Process claim 8" (main brief, page
2)is in error, since claim 8 is clearly drawn to the product
(“A breathable, decorative wall covering”) resulting from the
process recitations set forth in the claim (product-by-process
claim). The determination of patentability of a product by
process claim is based upon the product itself, not its method
of production. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ
964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007