Appeal No. 2000 0921
Application No. 08/366,090
Claims 1-54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Roessler in view of Flug. The examiner states
(final rejection, page 2):
Roessler teaches all aspect[s] of the claimed invention
except for the specific Gurley stiffness values and
substrate overlay of 2%-98%.[3] The Roessler article
comprises similar materials as recited in applicants’
invention, therefore the Gurley stiffness value is
considered to be the same. The Gurley stiffness values
recited in applicants’ specification, even though
performed in a standard testing machine, are considered
useless for comparison purposes to the prior art. The
Gurley stiffness values can vary depending to sample size
and other factors. Even if Roessler stated a Gurley
stiffness value, there would be no way to correlate a
Roessler value with the claimed values due to different
testing procedures.
The examiner further considers (final rejection, page 3) that
substrate overlayment of from about 2% to about 98%, as called for
in claims 8 and 20, is taught by Flug, and that it would have been
obvious in view of this teaching to provide a similar overlayment
arrangement in Roessler. The examiner contends (final rejection,
page 3) that the rejection is proper because “[a]pplicants have not
sufficiently demonstrated that the fastening tab of Roessler will
not meet the test value of applicants’ invention when tested in
accordance to applicants’ test method.”
3The requirement that the substrate overlays from about 2 to
about 98 percent of the planar surface of the first mechanical
fastener component is found only in dependent claims 8 and 20.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007