Appeal No. 2006-1309
Application No. 09/166,625
(d) claims 9 and 17 over the stated combination of
references further in view of Wilson and Mobley.
Appellant submits at page 3 of the principal brief that
claims 1 and 9 stand or fall together, as do claims 10 and 17.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellant’s arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning
of § 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner’s rejections for essentially those reasons
expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
Garland, like appellant, discloses a drop cloth comprising
a first layer of non-woven fabric material and a second layer
having a liquid impervious plastic material. Garland does not
disclose that his drop cloth includes natural fibers or rayon in
the non-woven fabric; Garland uses spun bonded polypropylene.
However, as pointed out by the examiner, Garland, as well as
Reaves and Trosper, evidences that it was known in the art to
employ natural fibers, such as cotton, in the absorbent layer of
a drop cloth. Also, appellant’s specification discloses that
“drop cloths have been made from sheets of cotton, cotton
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007