Appeal No. 2006-1587 Application No. 10/020,768 Appellant argues that these claims require a glass fiber content of less than 50% by weight (id.). We have addressed these arguments above with respect to Heidweiller and have found them unconvincing. For this reason and because Appellant has not contested the Examiner’s proposed combination of Heidweiller and Helwig ‘843, we affirm this rejection for the reasons given above. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Heidweiller in view of Kinsley Claims 20 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Heidweiller in view of Kinsley. The Examiner cites Kinsley for the limitation requiring polyvinyl alcohol in powder form with a particle size of 50-250 microns (Answer, page 10). The Examiner states that Kinsley’s “preferred binder is a polyvinyl alcohol powder . . . [with] a dry size diameter of 88-220 microns and a swollen size diameter of 176-440 microns” (Answer, page 10). According to the Examiner, “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a binder with a dry size diameter of 88-220 microns as suggested by Kinsley, Jr. in the invention of Heidweiller motivated by the expectation of successfully practicing the invention of Heidweiller” (Answer, page 10). The Examiner acknowledges that the combination of Heidweiller and Kinsley “discloses the claimed invention except for that the base web has about 10 to less than 50% by weight of glass fibers” as required by claim 22 (id.). The Examiner states “that the weight percentage of glass -13-Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007