Appeal No. 2006-1411
Application No. 10/013,875
the roll of Hansen having a bond point angle higher than 20°.
As explained by the examiner,
Cumbers teaches the projection angle is chosen to
prevent extremely localized bonds (which occurs with
angles that are to [sic, too] small) and weak
peripheral region bonds (which occurs with angles that
are to [sic, too] large) (Column 3, lines 20-23, 37-
41, and 49-55 and Column 4, lines 20-23, 55-61, and
65-68 and Column 5, lines 1-2, 43-45, and 51) [page 5
of Answer, last sentence].
Appellant contends that "[o]n close examination, one finds
a bond angle of 0 degrees suggested by illustration of the bond
points in Hansen's Fig. 2" (page 5 of principal brief,
penultimate paragraph). However, we agree with the examiner's
assessment stated at page 12 of the Answer:
It is unclear how the top view of a bonded fabric
shown in Figure 2 of Hansen et al. shows the bond
areas were formed from a projection having a bond
point angle of 0°. The square shaped bond area as
depicted in Figure 2 of Hansen et al. would have the
same topographical view no matter if formed from a
square shaped projection having a bond point angle of
0° or a square shaped projection having a bond point
angle of 50°.
Appellant also refers to Figs. 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No.
3,885,045 to Brock, a contemporary of Hansen having a common
assignee, for evidence of a 0 degree bond angle utilization in
Hansen. We agree with the examiner, however, that "[i]t is
unclear how Brock a reference (to a different inventor) not at
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007