Appeal No. 2004-1831
Application No. 09/338,095
depend therefrom as being unpatentable over Yoshino. For
analogous reasons, we also cannot sustain the corresponding
rejection of independent claim 7 (which requires that both the
first and second distal portions extend for a distance less than
the roll width) or of the claims which depend therefrom.
As for independent claim 19, the appellants and the examiner
again agree that this claim distinguishes from Yoshino via the
limitation “at least 75 percent of the width of the sheet
material in the pleated portions forming the laminate between
said edges is within the 2/3 of the axial length of the roll from
said first end.” According to the examiner, it would have been
obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art “to vary . . . the
percent of the width of the sheet material [of Yoshino] in the
pleats forming the laminate between the edges is [sic, to be]
within 2/3 of the axial length from the end since these
parameters would be readily determined through routine
experimentation by one having ordinary skill in the art depending
on the desired end result” (answer, page 5).
As before, Yoshino provides utterly no evidentiary support
for this obviousness conclusion. Quite plainly, it is only the
appellants’ own disclosure which provides any teaching or
suggestion for the claim feature under consideration. These
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007