Appeal 2006-2352
Application 10/065,436
with other known prior art would have rendered any of claims 6-10, 16-38,
and 72-80 unpatentable.
For example only, dependent claim 8 depends from affirmed rejected
claim 4 and adds the requirement of forming a nonwoven fabric from a
plurality of staple fibers according to claim 4. As we noted above, Shiozaki
discloses absorbent hollow filaments or staple fibers that are useful in
preparing nonwoven fabrics (col. 6, ll. 52-60). Thus, the Examiner should
determine whether Shiozaki alone or in combination with other known prior
art would have rendered the formation of a nonwoven fabric as recited in
claim 8 prima facie unpatentable. If so, the Examiner should enter an
appropriate rejection. Similarly, the Examiner should determine whether
Shiozaki alone or in combination with other prior art would have rendered
the subject matter of any of the other claims (claims 6, 7, 16-38, and 72-80)
unpatentable.
20
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013