Appeal No. 2006-0111
Application 09/900,746
specifically the nonwoven fabric required by claim 13 on appeal (see
col. 3, ll. 34-38) and the water-dispersible binder (col. 3, ll. 57-
58) (Answer, page 7), we determine that Deacon alone establishes a
prima facie case of obviousness for the claimed subject matter. We
also adopt our discussion of Deacon from above regarding the prima
facie obviousness of claim 1 on appeal, from which claims 13 and 15
depend. Since all of appellants’ arguments concerning this
rejection are directed to Perini (Brief, pages 13-14; Reply Brief,
pages 3-4), these arguments are not persuasive.
For the foregoing reasons as well as the findings from the
Answer, we determine that claims 13 and 15 are prima facie obvious
in view of the reference evidence. Based on the totality of the
record, including due consideration of appellants’ arguments, we
determine that the preponderance of evidence weighs most heavily in
favor of obviousness within the meaning of section 103(a).
Therefore we affirm the rejection of claims 13 and 15 under section
103(a) over Deacon alone.
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007