Appeal No. 2006-1411
Application No. 10/013,875
Appellant also maintains in the principal brief that "[t]he
Cumbers teaching regarding what he calls the 'projection angle'
is, at best, confusing in that definition (i.e., col. 4 lines
45-47) and, at worst, is incomprehensible and therefore, non-
enabling" (page 8, last paragraph). However, appellant's Reply
Brief has not refuted the examiner's reasonable analysis at
pages 10 and 11 of the Answer.
We are also not persuaded by appellant's argument that
"Cumbers contains no indication that the teaching is relevant to
the bonding of a web comprising a polyethylene fiber" (page 10
of principal brief, first paragraph). As pointed out by the
examiner, Cumbers expressly teaches that "[t]he fibrous web may
be composed of any conventional thermoplastic textile fibre"
(column 5, lines 43-45), and Hansen, as well as appellant's
specification, evidences that polyethylene was a known
conventional thermoplastic textile fiber that is conducive to
thermal bonding.
As a final point, we note that appellant bases no argument
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected
results, which would serve to rebut the prima facie case of
obviousness established by the examiner.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007