Appeal No. 2000 0921
Application No. 08/366,090
theory of inherency. More particularly, we find appellants’
reasoning on pages 3-4 of the brief, which the examiner has not
even attempted to refute, as to why the allegedly inherent Gurley
stiffness value does not necessarily flow from Roessler’s teachings
to be persuasive. In brief, appellants argue that while the hook
material described by Roessler appears to be like the hook material
described on page 18 of appellants’ specification in connection
with example 1, this alone is not enough to establish that the area
of the fastener tab in question4 necessarily has a Gurley stiffness
value within the claimed range. In that appellants’ specification
clearly points out5 that the Gurley stiffness value at the claimed
area is influenced by the physical properties of both the hook
material and the substrate, appellants’ argument is well taken. In
addition, and as aptly pointed out by appellants on page 4 of the
brief, fastener tabs made using the hook material described on page
18 of appellants’ specification, which material is akin to that
disclosed in Roessler, may or may not fall within the claimed
Gurley stiffness value depending on the characteristics of the
4That is, the area of the fastening tab that includes both
the hook material and the substrate.
5See, for example, page 7, line 18, through page 8, line 15,
and page 9, lines 6-15, of appellants’ specification.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007