Appeal No. 2001-0159
Application 08/936,724
teachings from the prior art itself must 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 has
not established that the applied prior art itself would have led
one of ordinary skill in the art to use a sticking hot melt
adhesive to bond a resin film on a fiber mat. Accordingly, we
reverse the rejection of claim 16.
DECISION
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1, 4, 6 and 15
over JP ‘849 in view of Sens, Sowinski and optionally Sack, is
reversed. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over these
references further in view of Gilman or Hall is affirmed as to
claims 3, 9 and 11, and reversed as to claim 16.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007