Appeal No. 2000-1564
Application 08/924,307
appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to one of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048,
1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). The mere fact that the
prior art could be modified as proposed by the examiner is not
sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783
(Fed. Cir. 1992). The examiner must explain why the prior art
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the
desirability of the modification. See Fritch, 972 F.2d at
1266, 23 USPQ2d at 1783-84.
The examiner correctly points out that the applied prior
art discloses a single layer separator containing both
cellulosic fibers and synthetic fibers and discloses multiple
layers wherein each layer has the same composition. The
examiner, however, has not explained how the applied
references themselves would have led one of ordinary skill in
the art to form a laminate wherein the layers contain both
cellulosic fibers and synthetic fibers and have different
properties such as airtightness, liquid impregnate ratio and
beating degree. Particularly, the examiner has not explained
-6-6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007