Appeal No. 2006-2277
Application No. 10/390,459
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning
of § 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner's rejection for the reasons set forth in
the Answer, and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
There is apparently no dispute that Klowak teaches the use
of a patterned industrial process fabric for imparting a pattern
to paper, paper related products, webs, etc. Klowak is silent
with respect to the process for making the patterned industrial
fabric. However, Klowak refers to the process fabric as an
embossing fabric (column 2, lines 19-31), and expressly teaches
that "[t]he embossing fabric may be of many known types which
are fluid-pervious and have an undulating, patterned surface"
(column 7, lines 34-36). Albert, on the other hand, evidences
that it was known in the art to employ the presently claimed two
opposed elements to impart an embossing pattern on non-laminated
and laminated fabrics. Accordingly, we are convinced that the
examiner has drawn the proper legal conclusion that it would
have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to employ
an embossing process of the type disclosed by Albert, and
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007