Appeal No. 2006-1309
Application No. 09/166,625
Concerning the oriented fibers of claim 4 and the randomly
oriented fibers of claim 5, we agree with the examiner that it
would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to
select either one of these two possible orientations contingent
upon the particular physical properties of the layer desired.
We concur with the examiner that since Garland does not require
either orientation for the non-woven fibers, it is reasonable to
presume that the reference would have suggested the use of
either well-known orientation to one of ordinary skill in the
art. Appellant’s specification teaches no criticality for
either orientation.
Regarding the claim 6 requirement that the synthetic fibers
of the non-woven material are fused together, appellant has not
properly challenged the examiner’s official notice that “it is
well known in the art to employ a blend of synthetic
thermoplastic fibers and cellulosic fibers to produce a strong
nonwoven fabric being bonded by said thermoplastic fibers and to
enhance the ability of the nonwoven [fabric] to bond to other
thermoplastic materials” (page 6 of Answer, second paragraph).
Appellant again only offers a bald challenge to the examiner’s
finding without presenting the requisite information or argument
that creates, on its face, a reasonable doubt regarding the
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007