Appeal No. 2006-1587
Application No. 10/020,768
calculates the diameter of the polyethylene glycol terephthalate
fibers used in Example II to be 12.4 microns (Answer, page 3).
The Examiner and the Appellant agree that the subject
matter of claim 1 differs from Heidweiller in that the reference
does not specifically teach a non-woven fibrous web with a glass
fiber content of about 10 to less than 50% by weight and
polyethylene terephthalate fibers with a diameter of from about
6 to about 12 microns as required by claim 1 (Answer, page 5;
Brief, page 8). The Examiner argues that glass fiber content
and polyethylene terephthalate diameter are “result effective
variables” (Answer, paragraph bridging pages 5 and 6) and
Comment [s4]: Inserted jump cited
relying on In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219for In re Boesch.
(CCPA 1980), states that “it has been held that discovering an
optimum value of a result effective variable involves only
routine skill in the art” (Answer, page 6). Thus, it is the
Examiner’s conclusion that claim 1 is obvious over Heidweiller
because “[i]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to create a
web with [sic, where] glass fibers are present in the weight of
about 10 to less than 50% and the polyethylene terephthalate
fibers have a diameter of from about 6 to [about] 12 microns as
required by claim 1” (Answer, page 6). We agree.
We first address the glass fiber content. We note that
independent claim 1 includes an upper limit for the glass fiber
content of less than 50% by weight. In contrast, and as
acknowledged by the Examiner and the Appellant, 50% glass fiber
content is the lowest amount specifically taught by Heidweiller.
Thus, the claimed range is contiguous with the prior art range.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007