Appeal No. 2004-1583
Application No. 09/760,962
column 8, lines 20-32; Figures 1-8.) According to Pike ’926,
the bonding step may be carried out by pattern bonding. (Column
9, lines 43-36.) Pike ’926 further teaches that the splitting
step may be performed by using a spray of hot steam (e.g.,
spraying about 4.5 m3/min of 104ºC steam through a nozzle sprayer
having a 0.3 cm slot onto the web for about 0.5 seconds).
(Column 8, lines 33-46; Example 9.)
From the teachings of Pike ’926 alone, we determine that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie
obvious to reverse the bonding and splitting steps described in
Example 9 as suggested by the express teachings found at column
8, lines 27-32, thus arriving at a method encompassed by
appealed claim 28. While Pike ’926 does not expressly state
that the steam treatment results in hydroentangling, the steam
treatment is nevertheless the same or substantially the same as
the hydroentangling described in the present specification
(pages 13-14). Under these circumstances, the burden of proof
is on the appellants to prove that the steam treatment described
in the reference would not inherently or necessarily result in
hydroentangling. Cf. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44
USPQ2d at 1432; In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007