Appeal No. 2005-1083
Application No. 09/950,642
THE EVIDENCE
The examiner relies on the following evidence:
Terliska 4,265,703 May 5, 1981
“Metal Fibers,” Synthetic Fibers In Papermaking, 145, 157-61
and 167-80 (O.A. Battista ed., Interscience Publ., New York
1964)(hereinafter referred to as “Battista”).
THE REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 4 through 11, 18 through 23, and 26 through
31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Battista with or without Terliska.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
applied prior art references, including all of the arguments and
evidence advanced by both the examiner and the appellant in
support of their respective positions. This review has led us to
conclude that the examiner’s Section 103 rejection is well
founded. Accordingly, we affirm this rejection for essentially
those reasons set forth in the Answer and below.
We observe that the appellant unequivocally and clearly
states at page 1 of the specification that:
The present invention relates to a process for
making a wet-layed metal fiber nonwoven sheet. In
particular, the present invention relates to such a
process which employs a unique dispersing agent in the
preparation of the metal fiber sheet.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007