Appeal 2006-2791
Application 09/729,626
the strength and hand of the fabric (Answer 3-4). The Examiner contends
that while Greenway does not use the same language as Appellants for the
properties of channel width and Average Height Differential, Greenway
does disclose a forming surface made up of a series of raised and recessed
regions while teaching that the particular texture and pattern of the fabric
relates to the desired aesthetic properties and tensile strength (Answer 5-6).
Accordingly, the issues presented from the record in this appeal are as
follows: (1) Has the Examiner identified a reasonable basis for believing that
the product of Greenway is substantially similar to the claimed product, even
in the absence of a disclosure of the claimed properties; and (2) Has the
Examiner identified reasons why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
modified the Greenway product to produce a cleaning sheet that is the same
or substantially similar to the claimed product?
We determine that the Examiner has met the initial burden of proof
and established a prima facie case of obviousness in view of Greenway. We
further determine that Appellants’ arguments do not adequately rebut this
prima facie case. Therefore, we AFFIRM the sole rejection in this appeal
essentially for the reasons stated in the Answer, as well as those reasons set
forth below.
OPINION
We determine the following Factual Findings from the record in this
appeal:
(1) Greenway discloses an apparatus and related process for
entangling a fibrous web having two layers to form a textile-like
fabric having a uniform, non-apertured surface with a symmetrical
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013