Appeal No. 2004-0418
Application No. 09/457,183
USPQ 93, 95 (CCPA 1972). However, as correctly argued by
appellants (Brief, page 5), the examiner has not shown that Jaffee
teaches a paper overlay having a basis weight of about 25 to 75
lbs./msf as required by claim 1 on appeal. The examiner has failed
to point to any disclosure or suggestion in Jaffee of a paper
overlay, merely citing examples of Jaffee directed to glass fibers
with a basis weight of 18 lbs./msf (col. 6, ll. 5-6), 18.3 lbs./msf
(col. 6, ll. 54-55), and 19.2 lbs./msf (col. 7, ll. 31-32)(Answer,
pages 3 and 6). The examiner has not established, by convincing
evidence or reasoning, why the optimization of the basis weight of
glass fiber mats would have suggested the claimed basis weight for
a resin impregnated paper overlay.
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the examiner
has not established a prima facie case of obviousness in view
of Jaffee. We note that Tingley and Lindquist were cited by the
examiner merely to show the limitations recited in claims 12
and 13, respectively, and do not remedy the deficiency in the
examiner’s rejection as discussed above (Answer, page 4; see
the final rejection dated Jun. 6, 2002, Paper No. 8, page 3).
Accordingly, we also determine that the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the
applied prior art as a whole. Therefore the examiner’s rejection
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007