Appeal 2007-0291
Application 09/976,412
whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be
afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s
specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027
(Fed. Cir. 1997).
Applying the preceding legal principles to the factual findings in the
record of this appeal, we determine that Paley does not “teach away” from
the claimed subject matter, and that the Examiner has established a prima
facie case of obviousness in view of the reference evidence. Paley teaches
that “localized melting of the segments” is insufficient to prevent
contamination during use of the wiper but this teaching does not give any
indication of the relative spacing of these “localized” points of melting or
fusion (see factual finding (2) listed above). We determine that one of
ordinary skill in this art would have recognized that the number and relative
location of the discontinuous “localized” points of melting or fusion would
have an effect on the barrier properties, and a large number of closely spaced
bonding points would have approximated the total fusion around the
periphery of the wiper of Paley, with the attendant barrier preventing the
release of particulates. This determination is supported by Langley, where a
discontinuous pattern of bonding avoids release of microscopic particles due
to the large number and close proximity of the bonding points (see factual
findings (3) and (4) listed above). Additionally, we determine that the
teaching of Paley regarding the insufficiency of “localized” melting is not
contrary to Langley, as Langley teaches discontinuous bonding seams
around the periphery of the garment that include folded-over edges, and not
just discontinuous bonding (see factual finding (4) listed above). Therefore,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013