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: 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013