Appeal No. 2006-0778
Application No. 10/266,917
[emphasis added] fabric. Appellants refer to the Declaration of
A. Frank Baldwin, Jr. in support thereof. Appellants also
reproduce Fig 4A of Goulait on page 4 of the brief for showing
that the example in Goulait has bonded fibers. Appellants argue
that Goulait teaches that the loop structures require bonding of
fibers (to each other and/or to a backing layer).
The examiner admits that Goulait does not disclose use of a
spunlaced material. Answer, page 3. The examiner finds that
Goulait teaches that there can be “no interfiber bonds.” The
examiner refers to column 12, lines 41 through 49 of Goulait in
this regard. Answer, page 14.
A spunlaced fabric means a fabric formed by mechanical
entanglement of the fibers by jet entanglement or hydraulically
needling, and therefore has a specific meaning in the art. We
appreciate the examiner’s finding that Goulait teaches that
there can be “no interfiber bonds.” However, Goulait does not
specifically disclose use of a “spunlaced” fabric. The examiner
offers no factual foundation and/or technical explanation that
the resultant fabric would be identical to a spunlaced fabric.1
In fact, the examiner places the burden upon appellants to show
that the fabric in Goulait is no different from a spunlaced
fabric. Answer, page 3. However, the examiner’s placement of
such burden is incorrect. We note that when a examiner relies
upon a theory of inherency, “the examiner must provide a basis
in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the
determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic
1 The examiner makes a statement that the article is identical to the
claimed article, and discusses the nature of product-by-process
claims, but does not support these statements with facts or technical
reasoning. Answer, pages 3-4.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007