Appeal No. 2002-2298 Page 5
Application No. 09/442,442
to prevent fluid flow and reduce perforation over the course of multiple passes under
the water jet manifold. The examiner then concluded that the film product is taken as
having no reduction in formation of the apertures. Next, the examiner stated that if the
above disclosure is not taken as an anticipation, the examiner takes the position that "it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the above analysis
that there is no reduction in aperture formation with the process of Figure 16." Lastly,
the examiner declared that "[n]o weight is given to applicant's process limitations as
long as a similar product is taken as being produced by the process cited in [Turi]."
The appellant's argument
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 3-5; reply brief, pp. 1-2) that there is no evidence
that the apparatus shown in Figure 16 of Turi would produce an apertured web as set
forth in the claims under appeal (i.e., an apertured web having a reduced number of
incompletely formed apertures relative to an apertured web made using a
corresponding apparatus comprising a support structure and a forming member but
without a porous structure in between).
Our position
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 44 to 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or,
in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007