Appeal No. 2004-1950
Application 09/352,612
influenced by a variety of factors, including number of bonding lines, the spacing of bonding
lines, and the polymeric material of the strip, all of which one of ordinary skill in the art would
have readily appreciated as contributing factors” (id., page 13). Thus, the examiner concludes
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the teachings of Kobiella to
employ the bonding thereof in the welds of Van Vliet in the reasonable expectation that “the
orientation of the strips would be maintained and in turn the strength of the strips in the weld
zone would increase” (id.).
The examiner points out with respect to appealed claim 4 that Kobiella teaches at col. 4,
ll. 13-27, that the bond lines can be 2.5 mm in width (id., page 14). With respect to the strength
limitation of appealed claim 16, the examiner finds that Van Vliet forms mats with strips drawn
to orient the molecules in the longitudinal direction and thus have high tensile strength in that
direction, pointing out that the reference would have suggested at page 4, ll. 12-15, “that the
mesh mats have almost the same strength as the sum of the strengths of the strips located in one
direction” (id.). The examiner further finds that in Kobiella, the spatially separated bonding
lines act to maintain the strength of the strip at the zone of overlap. With respect to appealed
claim 6, the examiner points out that Foglia suggests that a “laser is a known means used to weld
thermoplastic strips” (id., pages 14-16).
Appellants reply that Van Vliet teaches bonding the entire zone of overlap in both single
strip bonding and crossed strip bonding while Kobiella teaches only single strip bonding, and
thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been taught by the combination of references that
the end of the single strip can be welded either across the entire zone of overlap or by separated
bonding lines because Kobiella neither provides motivation for welding crossed strips or
appreciates the problems of a grid (reply brief, pages 2-3). With respect to the strength
limitations in appealed claim 16, appellants further argue that contrary to the findings of the
examiner, Kobiella teaches acceptable strength welds of thin-film strips without “sacrificing an
unacceptable amount of strap strength at the weld” at col. 3, l. 67, to col. 4, l. 4, which would
have taught that the “the bond is not strong, but rather marginally acceptable,” and thus would
not have provided the reasonable expectation of success that one of ordinary skill in the art needs
“to solve a technical problem” of early rupture (id., pages 4-5). Appellants point out that the
strip of Kobiella is wider and thinner than a conventional strap, and the reference “is directed to
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007