Appeal No. 2005-1386
Application No. 10/010,620
The examiner has also not established that the HAK heating step of
Arnold would even be applied to any additional crimped, lofted
layer (Arnold, col. 7, ll. 21-24), much less shown that the HAK
heating step of Arnold would be “sufficient to set the crimps” as
required by step (d) of claim 7. For the foregoing reasons, we
cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 7, and claims 8-
11, 13, and 15-20 which stand or fall with claim 7, under section
103(a) over Arnold in view of Kane.
We note that the telephone interviews alluded to by appellants
(Reply Brief, page 3) are not of record in this application. Upon
the return of this application to the jurisdiction of the examiner,
the examiner and appellants should ensure a complete record of any
interviews. See MPEP, § 713.04, 8th ed., p. 700-200, Rev. 2, May
2004.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007