Appeal No. 2004-1950
Application 09/352,612
addressed by the combination of references, and there is no limitation with respect to the bond
and/or strap strength in appealed claims 1, 4 and 6.
Appellants’ arguments based on the use in Kobiella of film strips that “are wider and
thinner than a conventional strip” are not convincing because such strips are encompassed by the
teachings of Van Vliet as well as by the appealed claims.
With respect to appealed claim 6, appellants do not support their bare argument that
Foglia does not teach the use of lasers to form spatially separated bonding points or lines.
Indeed, the reference teaches that overlapped polymeric films may be joined together with a
focused laser beam which can be pulsed to form a succession of bonded areas (e.g., col. 1, ll.
44-60, and col. 6, ll. 8-13).
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record before us, we have
weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the combined teachings of Van Vliet, Kobiella,
Romanek and Saito and of Van Vliet, Kobiella, Romanek, Saito, Hoechst and Foglia with
appellants’ countervailing evidence of and argument for nonobviousness and conclude that the
claimed invention encompassed by appealed claims 1 through 7 and 13 through 23 would have
been obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (effective September 13, 2004; 69 Fed. Reg. 49960
(August 12, 2004); 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (September 7, 2004)).
AFFIRMED
- 12 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007