Appeal No. 2005-1635
Application No. 09/782,036
reasonable expectation of successfully coating or laminating
both bottom and top sides of a textile sheet.
As to claims 8 and 13, the appellants have not disputed the
examiner’s determinations regarding obviousness of the
limitations recited in claims 8 and 13 set forth at page 11 of
the Answer. The appellants only argue that the additional prior
art relied upon by the examiner, i.e., Meyer, Garbini and the
admitted prior art, do not cure the deficiencies argued above.
Therefore, for the factual findings set forth in the Answer and
above, we are not persuaded that it would not have been obvious
to arrive at the claimed subject matter as discussed supra.
CONCLUSION
Based on the totality of record, including due
consideration of the appellants’ arguments, we determine that
the preponderance of evidence weighs most heavily in favor of
obviousness within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1 through 5, 8, 10 through 23 and 25 through 32 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007