Appeal No. 2006-1587
Application No. 10/020,768
to about 12 microns for the diameter of the PET fibers
explicitly set forth in present claim 1” (Brief, page 17).
As indicated by Appellant, Helwig ‘879 shows preference for
having “most, if not all, of the reinforcement fibers to be made
out of glass” (col. 2, lines 40-41). Further, it is true that
Helwig ‘879 provides a single example of a non-woven fiber mats
with less than 100% glass fibers. Nevertheless, it is
significant that Helwig ‘879 expressly teaches “[i]t may even be
possible for the reinforcement fibers to include only non-glass
fibers” (Abstract). This teaching directly contradicts
Appellant’s above noted “industry standard” argument. Moreover,
it has long been held that a reference is not limited to
preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874
F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied,
493 U.S. 975 (1989). Therefore, notwithstanding the preference
of Helwig ‘879, the express teaching in the abstract militates
against the Appellant’s above discussed argument and for the
Examiner’s obviousness conclusion. It follows that we are
unpersuaded by this argument.
Appellant’s argument concerning the diameter of the
polyethylene terephthalate fiber mirrors the same argument
raised in the rejection based on the Heidweiller reference. We
refer to our discussion above in response.
Claim 6 is not argued separately and, therefore, stands or
falls with claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain this rejection for the reasons
given above.
-17-
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007