Appeal No. 2005-1988
Application No. 09/822,651
agree with the examiner’s position on this issue.
On page 3 of the reply brief, appellants argue that Thomas
does not specifically teach that the polymeric materials are
fused at the substrate but rather teaches that only the bases of
the loops or hooks are “deposited” on the substrate. We are not
convinced by this argument in view of the aforementioned
disclosure of appellants’ specification as compared with the
disclosure of Thomas.
Appellants do not provide an explanation as to how the
pressure discussed on pages 5 through 8 of their specification
differs from the pressure used in Thomas such that fusing does
not occur in Thomas.
In view of the above, we affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claims 21-31, 33-35, 37, 39, 40, 42-48, 50-53 and 55
as being anticipated by Thomas.
II. The rejection of claims 21-26, 28-31, 33, 39, 40, 42-48, 50-
53, and 55 as being anticipated by Wessels
On page 10 of the brief, appellants argue that claims 21,
40, and 48 each recite “a plurality of discrete polymeric regions
fused to a first major side of the web”. Appellants also argue
(again) that the claims recite “a plurality of stems extending
from each discrete polymeric region of the plurality of polymeric
regions”.
Appellants argue that, in contrast, Wessels discloses a
-9-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007