Appeal No. 1997-4392
Application No. 08/639,515
backing and states that “the presently recited claims read on the process of making a female connector
sheet taught by Altman modified by Eschenbach where loopy yarns spaced from each other are
adhesively secured to a sheet” (answer, pg. 8). We find that this reasoning also
lacks the specifically claimed step of running a plurality of yarns in a sheet past an adhesive applicator
so that said adhesive spans the space between adjacent yarns such that the loops of the
yarns adhere to each other. Merely using adhesive for attaching the thread-like strips 16 to the sheet
11 of Altman may have been an obvious alternative to the stitching disclosed in Altman, but for the
examiner to further speculate as to how the adhesive is applied without a specific teaching or suggestion
in the prior art, we feel, requires the use of impermissible hindsight to arrive at the method of
appellant’s claim 12.
In summary, we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Altman in view of Eschenbach. Since dependent claims 13 and
15 include all of the limitations of claim 12, we will also not sustain the examiner's rejection of these
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007