Appeal No. 2003-0391
Application 09/228,433
rates, and the examiner has not cogently explained or
demonstrated, nor is it evident, why the artisan would have
gleaned therefrom any suggestion of substantially equal ply resin
wetting rates.
Thus, the combined teachings of Louderback, Palmer and
Seemann do not justify the examiner’s conclusion that the
differences between the subject matter recited in independent
claim 1 and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a
whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made
to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we
shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claim 1, and dependent claims 3 through 6 and 8 through 13, as
being unpatentable over Louderback in view of Palmer and Seemann.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 3 through 6
and 8 through 13 is reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007