Appeal 2007-0291
Application 09/976,412
to seal the edge while providing “exceptional flexibility” to the fabric (see
above factual finding (1) at p. 9).2
With regard to the rejection of claims 37 and 38, the Examiner applies
Morin for the reasons noted in the first rejection listed above. Appellants
merely argue that Morin does not teach a cleanroom wiper with a
discontinuous fused border zone on at least two edges (Br. 24).
Accordingly, we adopt the findings from Morin as discussed above and in
the Answer at pages 8-10, as well as the conclusion of law.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we affirm
the rejection of claims 5-14 and 19-31 under § 103(a) over Paley, Rockwell,
and Dean, and the rejection of claims 37-38 under § 103(a) over Paley,
Rockwell, Dean, and Morin.
C. Time Period for Response
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).
AFFIRMED
2 We also note that Appellants discuss Rockwell in the Specification as
directed to a device that can form the discontinuous pattern of bonding for
the edge of a fabric as desired by Appellants (Specification 12:20 to 13:1).
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013