Appeal 2006-2791
Application 09/729,626
width is the width between the continuous recessed pattern
(Specification 8:11-19); and
(6) Appellants disclose that the process of making the claimed
products includes hydroentangling the fibers of the structure on a
forming belt having the desired pattern of raised and recessed
regions (Specification 12:32-13:31).
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires a
determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary considerations. See Graham v.
John Deere of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
“Appellants have chosen to describe their invention in terms of certain
physical characteristics of the roughened substrate surface… Merely
choosing to describe their invention in this manner does not render
patentable their method…”. In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947, 950, 186 USPQ 80,
82 (CCPA 1975). The discovery of an optimum value of a result-effective
variable is generally obvious. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ
233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215,
219 (CCPA 1980).
Applying the preceding legal principles to the Factual Findings in the
record of this appeal, we determine that the Examiner has established a
prima facie case of obviousness. As shown by Factual Findings (1) and (3)
listed above, we determine that Greenway discloses a macroscopically three-
dimensional non-apertured fabric, which can be used as a cleaning sheet for
wiping surfaces, comprising a first and second layer of nonwoven material
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013