Appeal 2006-2949
Application 10/012,768
We refer to the Answer and to the Brief for a complete exposition of
the positions advanced by the Examiner and Appellants.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the record on this appeal and based
thereon find ourselves in agreement with the supported position advanced by
the Examiner that, prima facie, the claimed hydraulically entangled
nonwoven fabric encompassed by appealed claim 1 would have been
obvious over the combined teachings of Adam and Milding to one of
ordinary skill in this art at the time the claimed invention was made.
Accordingly, since a prima facie case of obviousness has been established by
the Examiner, we again evaluate all of the evidence of obviousness and
nonobviousness based on the record as a whole, giving due consideration to
the weight of Appellants’ arguments in the Brief. See generally, In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992);
In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
We agree with the Examiner’s findings of fact from the references and
conclusions of law based on this substantial evidence as set forth in the
Answer, to which we add the following for emphasis.
The plain language of claim 1, couched in product-by-process format,
specifies any manner of hydraulically entangled nonwoven fabric
comprising at least: any amount of recycled synthetic fibers and any amount
of any manner of synthetic fiber-like materials comprising at least any
amount of at least one thread element composed of any manner of synthetic
this record and in this instance, we are of the opinion that Appellants have
complied with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vi) (2005).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007