Appeal No. 2002-1002
Application No. 08/820,506
McCord teaches the invention as claimed with the exception of the
preamble language (see, e.g., Appeal brief, page 3, first
paragraph and Reply brief, page 1, second paragraph).
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
anticipated by McCord is affirmed.
2. The rejection of claims 14 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over McCord.
Claim 14
Having found that claim 14 is anticipated by McCord, the
claim is also necessarily obvious. See In re Baxter Travenol
Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Accordingly, the rejection is affirmed as to claim 14.
Claim 16
Turning to claim 16, the examiner found that McCord differs
from the claimed invention because the reference does not
disclose incorporating an attachment structure within the
disclosed nonwoven. According to the examiner, “[o]ne of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
incorporate an attachment structure such as an opening in order
to allow the nonwoven to be fitted into a particularly shaped
space.” Examiner’s answer, page 4.
The initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness rests on the examiner. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007