Appeal 2007-0291
Application 09/976,412
The Examiner contends that Langley teaches the use of discontinuous
pattern bonding and the use of a folded double layer to solve the problem of
contamination by microscopic particles in a cleanroom environment, and
such a patterned bonding would have been recognized by one of ordinary
skill in the art as equivalent to the continuous fused bonding pattern
disclosed by Paley (Answer 10-11).
The Examiner contends that the concept of Rockwell is the same as
Appellants, namely to provide a more flexible material due to a
discontinuous border (Answer 12).
Accordingly, the issues presented in this appeal are as follows: (1)
does Paley “teach away” from the claimed discontinuous fused border? ; (2)
does Dean teach polyesters within the scope of the claims? ; and (3) is
Rockwell analogous art?
We determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness in view of the reference evidence. Based on the totality of the
record, including due consideration of Appellants’ arguments and evidence,
we determine that the preponderance of evidence weighs most heavily in
favor of obviousness within the meaning of § 103(a). Therefore, we
AFFIRM all rejections on appeal essentially for the reasons stated in the
Answer, as well as those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
A. The Rejection over Paley, Langley, Morin, and Dean
We determine the following factual findings from the record in this
appeal:
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013