Appeal No. 2006-1587 Application No. 10/020,768 same successful properties as Heidweiller’s 50% polyethylene terephthalate fiber amount. Id. Appellant’s arguments regarding claim 17 also mirror the arguments for claims 13 and 14. We refer to our discussion above. Claim 18 was not separately argued and, therefore, stands or falls with claim 17. In light of the foregoing, it is our ultimate determination that the reference evidence adduced by the Examiner establishes a prima facie case of obviousness which the Appellant has failed to successfully rebut with argument or evidence of nonobviousness. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Accordingly, we hereby sustain this rejection of claims 1 through 8, 11, 13 through 18 and 21 as being unpatentable over Heidweiller. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Heidweiller in view of Helwig ‘843 Claims 19, 22 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Heidweiller in view of Helwig ‘843. The Examiner cites Helwig ‘843 to meet the limitation of claims 19 and 22 of a polyvinyl alcohol binder in the form of a Comment [s8]: The corrected the fiber having “a diameter of [from] about 6 to 16 microns and a quote from starting with having to “a”, inserted the missing text in brackets and length of about 4 to about 25mm” (Answer, page 7). According to correct the no. of mm from 12 to 25. the Examiner, “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use binder fibers with a length of 4mm and a fiber diameter of 12 -11-Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007