Appeal 2007-0291
Application 09/976,412
Appellants have not adequately rebutted by arguments or evidence.1
Therefore, we affirm the rejection of the claims on appeal over Paley,
Langley, and Morin in view of Dean.
B. The Rejections based on Paley, Rockwell, and Dean
We incorporate our factual findings from the record as listed above
with regard to the Paley and Dean references. Additionally, we determine
the following factual findings from the record in this appeal:
(1) Rockwell discloses a polyester fabric with ultrasonically
bonded boundary edges suitable for use in washing hands in
a restroom, where a discontinuous brick-like pattern
provides “exceptional flexibility” while sealing the edges of
the fabric (col. 1, ll. 4-7, and col. 2, ll. 14-26; Answer 7).
Determination that a reference is from non-analogous art is two-fold.
First, we must determine if the reference is within the field of the inventor’s
endeavor. If it is not, we proceed to determine whether the reference is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was
involved. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1577, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1120
(Fed. Cir. 1995); and In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036, 202 USPQ 171, 174
(CCPA 1979).
1 We note that Appellants present comparative data on pages 9-10 of the
Brief but specifically recognize that “these differences alone, however, are
insufficient to establish the patentability of the presently claimed invention”
(Br. 10). Although Appellants do not rely on this data as evidence to
overcome the rejection, we note that the disclosed “dramatic improvement”
has not been shown or established to be an “unexpected result” (Br. 10). See
In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1344, 41 USPQ2d 1451, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1997);
In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1099, 231 USPQ 375, 381 (Fed.
Cir. 1986).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013