Appeal No. 2006-0828
Application No. 10/252,175
film do not possess air permeability and therefore are not
readily adapted for receiving meltblown fibers thereon” (column
6, lines 31-33). Appellants maintain, therefore, that there
would have been no motivation for one of ordinary skill in the
art to modify the process of Allen in accordance with the
disclosure of Kobylivker.
The flaw in appellants’ argument is that it is not germane
to the claimed subject matter on appeal. Appealed claim 1, with
which all the appealed claims stand or fall, only defines joining
first and second primary components, with no recitation that
either component is a sheet or a film. Accordingly, while we
agree with the examiner that Kobylivker evidences the obviousness
of manufacturing an article by joining first and second primary
components formed from first and second extruded streams of
polymeric material, we find that the claimed subject matter would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over the
disclosure of Allen alone. We perceive no limitation in claim
1 that would have been nonobvious in light of the Allen
disclosure, and appellants have pointed to none. Contrary to the
implication of appellants’ arguments, appealed claim 1, as
drafted, does not exclude the method steps disclosed by Allen.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007