Appeal No. 1997-4392
Application No. 08/639,515
one another via a guide plate 16 forming a sheet which is run through an adhesive applicator 29 such
that a thin layer of adhesive is applied to the yarn and spans the space between the yarns so that some
of the loops of one yarn adhere to loops in an adjacent yarn. The fabric is allowed to set and is
directed to a take up roll 32 to be used in applications where it is desired to use a hook and loop type
connection.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting claims 12-16 are:
Altman 3,266,841 Aug. 16, 1966
Eschenbach 4,305,245 Dec. 15, 1981
Shimizu 4,732,631 Mar. 22, 1988
Claims 12, 13 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over1
Altman in view of Eschenbach.
Claims 14 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Altman
in view of Eschenbach as applied to claims 12, 13 and 15 above, and optionally further in view of
1 Although the final rejection lists claims 13-16 as being rejected based on Altman in view of Eschenbach
and optionally further in view of Shimizu, it is clear from paragraph 6 of the final rejection, the examiner’s answer and
appellant’s brief that all claims were intended to be rejected in the final rejection. Further, the rejections set forth in
the answer (Paper No. 10, pp. 5-9) breaks up the rejection with claims 12, 13 and 15 being unpatentable over Altman
in view of Eschenbach, and claims 14 and 16 being unpatentable over Altman in view of Eschenbach and optionally
further in view of Shimizu. Although this breakdown of claims is different from the final rejection, we find that the
examiner has merely gone into further detail in explaining the “optionally further in view of” statement. Since the
scope of the rejection is essentially unchanged from the final rejection, we will consider the more detailed explanation
of the rejections as set forth in the answer.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007