Appeal No. 2006-1153
Application No. 10/123,269
adhesive fibers and appellant’s adhesive web binder are both at
least partially melted by heat in order to thereby provide the
desired adhesive.
For the reasons stated above and in the answer, it is our
determination that the examiner has established a prima facie
case of anticipation which the appellant has failed to
successfully rebut with argument or evidence to the contrary.
See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992). We hereby sustain, therefore the examiner’s
Section 102 rejection based on Francis of independent claims
1 and 13 as well as nonargued dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 7-11, 14,
16 and 18.
As for the Section 103 rejection, the only additional
argument advanced by the appellant is that Francis contains no
teaching or suggestion that his fabric 47 consisting of
potentially adhesive fibers is produced “from at least one molten
polymeric material” as required by dependent claims 6 and 15.
However, as previously explained, patentee’s fabric (like
appellant’s adhesive web binder) is made from thermoplastic
polymers (e.g., see the paragraph bridging columns 2 and 3 of
Francis in comparison with lines 1-7 on page 6 of the appellant’s
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007