Appeal No. 2006-1587
Application No. 10/020,768
fibers are [sic, is a] result effective variables [sic,
variable]” (id.). According to the Examiner, “[i]t would have
been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time
the invention was made to create the base web having 10 to less
than 50% by weight of glass fibers, since it has been held that
discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable
involves only routine skill in the art” (id.).
Appellant argues that Kinsley “relates to a process for
making paper based product containing a binder” that “does not
include glass fibers” and “does nothing to address or alleviate
the shortcoming noted above with respect to the primary
reference to Heidweiller” (Brief, page 15). Appellant once more
argues the claimed glass fiber content and PET fiber diameter
limitations (Brief, paragraph bridging pages 15 and 16).
The arguments concerning the claimed glass fiber content and PET
fiber diameter limitations have been addressed above and we
refer to our prior discussion for rebuttal thereof.
Regarding the argument as to Kinsley being related to a
paper based product, we are not sure why this argument is
relevant and Appellant does not explain why it supports the
patentability of the claimed invention. On the other hand, the
reference-combination under review is supported by the fact that
Kinsley evinces that polyvinyl alcohol in powder form was known
in the prior art and was known to be used in this form as a
binder. Accordingly, we affirm this rejection.
-14-
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007