Appeal No. 2004-0446
Application No. 09/747,601
examiner concludes that “it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time [the] invention was made to
modify the [method and] device of Ewall, to include the process
of microcreping the non-woven fabric and the reinforcing fibers
along the length of the web, as suggested by Scholz, for the
purpose of providing stretchability and conformability to the
fabric (col. 4, lines 32-35)” (answer, page 4).
The appellants disagree with the examiner’s above noted
finding in relation to the Ewall patent. More particularly, it
is the appellants’ view that the examiner improperly considers
patentee’s cover or backing layer 17 as readable on the
reinforcing fibers required by the claims under review.
According to the appellants, this is because “layer 17 of Ewall
does not include any reinforcing fibers, but is, instead, a film”
(brief, page 7).
The examiner properly concedes that patentee’s layer 17 may
be in the form of a film. However, as correctly explained by the
examiner, Ewall also teaches (explicitly and repeatedly) that
backing or cover layer 17 also may be in the form of a fabric.
See lines 38-40 in column 3, lines 55-56 in column 4, lines 19-21
in column 5, lines 16-19 in column 6, lines 10-11 in column 14,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007