Appeal 2006-2299
Application 10/615,671
The § 102/§ 103 rejection over Kobayashi is premised on the
Examiner’s position that Patentee’s fabric-reinforced resin product
corresponds to the fabric reinforcement with resinous coating as defined by
the rejected claims (Answer 3). However, Kobayashi’s product constitutes a
laminated composite board (col. 4, ll. 63-64). As correctly argued by
Appellants, this composite board cannot be properly regarded as the here-
claimed fabric reinforcement since the prior art board is not expressly or
inherently disclosed as having the flexibility and drapability characteristics
ascribed to the fabric reinforcement (Specification 8 and 15). Stated
differently, it is not reasonable and consistent with the Specification to
interpret Appellants’ claimed fabric reinforcement as encompassing the
composite board of Kobayashi.
The § 102/§ 103 rejection also is based on the Examiner’s belief that
Appellants’ claimed coating weight distribution ratio is inherently disclosed
by, or alternatively would have been obvious over, Kobayashi (Answer 3-4).
This position is based on figure 2 of Kobayashi showing greater breadth of
warp fibers compared to weft fibers (Answer 10). However, Appellants’
claimed distribution ratio is not based on the relative breadth of yarn and the
resinous coating thereon. Instead, it is based on the weight of coating
divided by the weight of yarn (Specification 3). For this reason, the relative
breadth of the warp and weft yarns is irrelevant to the coating weight
distribution ratio.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013