Appeal 2006-2791
Application 09/729,626
where the first and second layers are entangled to form a front (working) and
back face, with the front face having non-random raised regions and
recessed regions (“a uniform pattern of protuberances”; Answer 3; see Figs.
8A, 8B, 9A, 9B, 10A, and 10B). As shown by Factual Findings (2) and (4)
listed above, Greenway teaches that the amount of entanglement correlates
with the desired physical properties, and the particular configuration and
pattern is well within the ordinary skill in this art. We determine that the
Average Height Differential depends on the amount of entanglement and the
width between channels correlates with the desired pattern of void areas and
solid areas (see Factual Finding (5) listed above).2 Therefore, we determine
that optimization of these result-effective variables would have been well
within the ordinary skill in this art.
Furthermore, we determine that the process of making the product as
disclosed by Greenway is essentially the same as the process disclosed by
Appellants, differing only by the particular desired pattern of raised and
recessed regions (see Factual Finding (6) listed above and Greenway, col. 4,
l. 55- col. 5, l. 18). As noted above, we determine that Greenway teaches the
use of various patterns would have been well within the ordinary skill in this
art (see Factual Finding (4) listed above). We note that Appellants have not
presented any evidence of unexpected results.
2 See, for example, the exemplification disclosed by Greenway of apertures
with a center-to-center staggered spacing of 3/32 inch and a thickness of
0.030 inch (col. 6, ll. 24-41). Of course, the disclosure of Greenway is not
limited to his examples. See In re Widmer, 353 F.2d 752, 757, 147 USPQ
518, 523 (CCPA 1965).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013