Ex parte ASCHENBECK et al. - Page 10




               Appeal No. 1998-0241                                                                       Page 10                 
               Application No. 08/465,373                                                                                         


                      Therefore, we shall sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 1 and claims 2, 4, 9 and                      
               10 which stand or fall therewith under 35 U.S.C.  102(b).                                                         
                      We shall not, however, sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 6, which requires that                     
               the step of applying sound comprises applying low frequency sound at locations on opposite                         
               sides of the veil "in a vertically offset relationship."  With regard to this limitation, the examiner             
               finds that the locations of the deflection gaps "are in vertically offset relationship with the                    
               fiberizer" (final rejection, page 3).  From our perspective, the language "in a vertically offset                  
               relationship" as used in the claim would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the                      
               art as requiring that the sound be applied at locations which are vertically offset from one                       
               another.  The examiner's apparent interpretation of this language as merely requiring that the                     
               sound application locations be vertically offset relative to anything strikes us as unreasonable in                
               this instance.  As best seen in Figures 1 and 2, the deflection gaps 5, 6 of Troth are located on                  
               opposite sides of the ribbon of fibers 1, but they are not in vertically offset relationship with                  
               one another.  Thus, it is our opinion that Troth fails to disclose all of the limitations of claim 6.              
                                                   The obviousness rejection                                                      
                      The appellants' only argument with regard to the patentability of claims 8 and 11 relies                    
               on the assertion that Troth does not disclose the step of applying sound to a portion of the fibers                
               to cause them to deviate from their path of travel.  For the reasons discussed above with regard                   
               to the rejection of independent claim 1, we do not find this argument persuasive.  Accordingly,                    









Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007