Appeal No. 2000-1871 Page 12
Application No. 08/907,398
(c) a matching pair of woven synthetic sheets, said
woven synthetic sheets being disposed on opposite sides
of said front and rear cover stiffening members and being
welded together around their respective peripheries.
Based on the examiner's analysis and review of Moor and
claim 10, the examiner ascertained (first Office action, p. 2)
that the only difference is the limitation that the woven
sheets be welded together around their peripheries. With
regard to this difference, the examiner then determined (first
Office action, pp. 2-3) that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention to modify the step
of attaching the woven sheets of Moor et al by
ultrasonically welding the sheets as taught by Desmarais
et al as a well known type of securing the cover sheets
together.
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 15-16; reply brief, pp.
2-4) that absent the use of impermissible hindsight, there is
no motivation in the applied prior art to replace the
stitching technique used in Moor to join together the two
synthetic woven sheets with the ultrasonic welding technique
taught by Desmarais. We do not agree. In that regard, in our
view the applied prior art clearly teaches two alternative
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007