Appeal No. 2006-1952
Application No. 09/750,744
In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir.
1985); In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34
(CCPA 1977). The examiner has not provided the required evidence
or reasoning which shows that apertured nonwoven fabrics, in
general, are identical or substantially identical to
hydroentangled, hydroapertured spun-lace fabrics. Also, the
examiner has not established that Hamajima’s disclosure of an
apertured nonwoven fabric would have fairly suggested a
hydroentangled, hydroapertured spun-lace fabric to one of
ordinary skill in the art.
The examiner, therefore, has not carried the burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the appellants’
claimed invention.
Remand
We remand the application for the examiner and the
appellants to address on the record whether Hamajima’s disclosure
of an apertured nonwoven fabric, alone or in combination with
other prior art, would have fairly suggested, to one ordinary
skill in the art, a hydroentangled, hydroapertured spun-lace
material.3
DECISION
3 Absorbent article topsheets comprising spun-lace (i.e., hydroentangled),
hydroapertured material appear to have been conventional in the art at the
time of the appellants’ invention. See, e.g., U.S. 5,431,643 to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013