Appeal No. 2006-1411
Application No. 10/013,875
Accordingly, the groups of claims separately rejected by the
examiner stand or fall together.
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 the reasons set forth in
the Answer, which we incorporate herein, and we add the
following for emphasis only.
There is no dispute that Hansen, like appellant, discloses
a method of making a non-woven fabric by thermally bonding the
fabric with a pair of rolls, one of which has an engraved
pattern thereon. Appellant also does not dispute the examiner's
factual determination that Hansen teaches that about 50 percent
of the fabric is thermally bonded, which meets the claimed
amount of at least about 24 percent. As acknowledged by the
examiner, Hansen is silent with respect to the bond point angle
of the plurality of bond points for the engraved pattern on the
roll. However, we concur with the examiner that Cumbers
evidences the obviousness of utilizing an engraved pattern on
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007