Appeal No. 2006-1153
Application No. 10/123,269
specification). Furthermore, Francis teaches forming these
potentially adhesive fibers by means which include spray guns 36,
49 and solvent vents 38, 51 (see lines 55-62 in column 9 and
lines 13-19 in column 10). In light of these disclosures of
Francis, it would have been obvious for an artisan to produce
patentee’s potentially adhesive fibers from molten polymeric
material as required by claims 6 and 15.2
In light of the foregoing, we again determine that the
Francis reference establishes a prima facie case of
unpatentability (under Section 103) which the appellant has
failed to successfully rebut with argument or evidence of
2We recognize that the claims on appeal are directed to a
method of producing a glass strand mat. Nevertheless, dependent
claims 6 and 15 are not directed to any aspect of such a method
but instead merely describe the manner by which the previously
recited adhesive web binder is manufactured. For this reason,
it is questionable whether these dependent claims further limit
the mat producing claims from which they depend (see 37 CFR
§ 1.75(c)). Concomitantly, it is questionable whether the
adhesive web binder recited in claims 6 and 15 is distinguished
from fabric 47 of Francis merely by reciting the manner in which
this adhesive web binder has been manufactured. Compare In re
Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
These issues should be considered by the examiner and the
appellant in any further prosecution that may occur.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007