Appeal No. 2002-1002
Application No. 08/820,506
used against its teacher.”) Accordingly, the rejection of claim
16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over McCord is reversed.
3. The rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over McCord and further in view of Pecora.
Claim 17 depends from claim 16 and recites the additional
limitation that the carwash brush element is partially divided
into a plurality of parallel strip like fingers. The examiner
relies on Pecora as teaching that the edges of a nonwoven
material may be slit in order to form a plurality of fingers
which enable the material to be used for cleaning. According to
the examiner, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to slit the edges of McCord’s material in view of the
teachings of Pecora in order to allow McCord’s material to be
used for cleaning. Examiner’s answer, page 5.
As pointed out by appellant, the examiner fails to establish
that the proposed combination teaches or suggests incorporating
an attachment structure in McCord’s material as discussed above
in connection with claim 16. See, supra, pages 6-8; Reply brief,
page 4, issue III. Moreover, we note that the examiner has
failed to establish the requisite motivation for combining the
teachings of McCord and Pecora. McCord is directed to a method
of making reversible, nonwoven material, in particular, carpet
backing. See, e.g., column 1, lines 23-25. In contrast, Pecora
is directed to a vehicle finishing device. The stated rejection
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007