Appeal No. 2003-1876
Application No. 09/209,044
claimed subject matter properly, the Examiner must disclose where in the prior art each of
the features of the claim is disclosed.
The Examiner asserts the difference between Kobayashi and the claimed invention
is that “Kobayashi does not teach adhesive creeping, but implies that any known creping
technique may be used.” (Answer, p. 4). The Examiner asserts the properties recited in
claim 1 would have been inherent in the material of Kobayashi formed by the adhesive
creping process of Grossman or Warchol. Specifically the Examiner states that “the
combination of Kobayashi and Grossman or Warchol is inherently disposed with these
properties as said combination teaches all aspects of the structure and materials recited in
applicant’s claims.” (Answer, p. 5).
The Examiner has not supplied sufficiant evidence to support the assertion that the
claimed properties would necessarily result from adhesive creping. The Examiner’s
citation to Appellants’ specification, page 45, for support that other methods of creping
could be use to crepe the web does not indicate that the claimed properties will
necessarily result. From any and all creping conditions on theis record, there is no
reasonable basis to believe that the fiber orientation factor (ff(R)), the ratio of surface area
to void volume (SA/VV) and a caliper properties of the claimed invention would
inherently result from the material of Kobayashi formed by the adhesive creping process
of Grossman or Warchol. (See Brief, p. 4). It is important to note that inherency cannot
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007