Ex Parte Botelho et al - Page 2



         Appeal No. 2006-2277                                                  
         Application No. 10/390,459                                            

             providing at least one of said two elements with an               
         embossing medium having a preselected embossing pattern;              
             providing a non-laminated industrial process fabric; and          
             compressing said fabric between said two opposed elements         
         of said device at said preselected level of compression for a         
         preselected time interval to emboss said industrial process           
         fabric with said preselected embossing pattern, wherein said          
         fabric so embossed is usable to make said paper, paper related        
         products, or non-woven textiles.                                      
             The examiner relies upon the following references as              
         evidence of obviousness:                                              
         Albert 4,541,895 Sep. 17, 1985                                        
         Klowak 4,849,054 Jul. 18, 1989                                        
             Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a method for         
         embossing an industrial process fabric in an endless loop             
         comprising passing the fabric between two opposed elements            
         wherein at least one of the two elements has an embossing             
         pattern thereon.  The fabric is non-laminated and its embossed        
         pattern is used to make paper, paper related products, etc.           
             Appealed claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.               
         § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Klowak in view of Albert.         
             Appellants have not presented separate arguments for any          
         particular claim on appeal.  Accordingly, all the appealed            
         claims stand or fall together with claim 1, and we will limit         
         our consideration to the examiner's rejection of claim 1.             
                                      -2-                                      



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007