Appeal No. 1999-2433
Application No. 08/862,361
claim 23 on appeal (Melling, page 3, lines 45-56, i.e., the
embodiment wherein there are holes in both fiber layers but at
different locations), we find that the examiner has pointed to
nothing in
Melling relating to the other process steps of appellants’
claim 23. Thus, the examiner has provided no factual basis as
to exactly how Melling teaches or suggests a first layer of
paper formed on wire of a first wet end of a paper-making
machine, a
second layer of paper formed on wire of a second wet end of a
paper-making machine, one of the two layers of paper having at
least some local regions of less thickness, with the two
layers being joined directly together and dried. Given the
lack of a factual basis to support the examiner’s rejection,
we must refuse to sustain the rejection of independent claim
37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Melling. It follows that the
examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 24 through 27 and 34,
and product-by-process claim 28 based on Melling will also not
be sustained.
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007