Appeal No. 2005-1988
Application No. 09/822,651
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 38 as obvious over
Thomas in view of Shepard
Beginning on page 16 of the brief, appellants argue that
claim 38 is not prima facie obvious over Thomas in view of
Shepard. Appellants again repeat the arguments presented with
respect to the Thomas reference (the argument that Thomas does
not teach (1) a plurality of stems extending from each discrete
polymeric region, (2) polymeric regions fused to a first major
side of the web, and (3) fusing of the polymeric material to the
web). However, we are not convinced by such argument for the
reasons discussed, supra, regarding these limitations.
On page 17 of the brief, appellants also argue that the
teachings of Thomas are directed to the manufacture of hooks or
loops by severing strands of polymer under tension such that the
severed strands recoil to form loops.
Appellants argue that a proper prima facie case of
obviousness would require that the examiner identify or discuss
how one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the
teachings of Thomas to provide mushroom shaped fasteners, as
recited in claim 38.
Appellants also argue that Shepard does not teach or suggest
the formation of a “mushroom head” on a loop. Appellants argue
that such actions are limited to stems or hooks, not loops.4
4 We note that claim 38 (as well as claim 21) does not specify a hook
-14-
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007