Appeal No. 1998-2833
Application No. 08/585,403
substantially completely fills the lower interstices of the
bundle 40 and, thus, that each reference discloses the claimed
invention, except for the specific filling material, e.g.,
foamed elastomer. This difference in materials is deemed by
the examiner to be a matter of design choice, citing In re
Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Appellant, on the other hand, argues that the references
lack teachings or suggestions that the interstices between the
monofilaments are “substantially completely filled” with
adhesive 46, much less completely filled with foamed elastomer
as required by claim 10. Further, appellants argue that the
monofilament tips that are in contact with the adhesive layer
46 in both references are at the wrong end of the bundle and,
thus, the adhesive layer 46 does not perform the functions of
the foamed elastomer filling recited in claim 10, namely,
"providing increased lateral stability to the projecting
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007