Appeal 2007-0486
Application 10/441,484
folded portions of the fabric of Eng is read on by the claimed protrusive
ridges. In this regard, we observe that rejected claims 11 and 12 do not
require any specific degree of protrusion for the claimed ridges, any specific
width for the ridges, and/or any particular size for the panels so long as the
towel (fabric) can be grasped with the hand, finger gripped and maneuvered
for use in cleaning. Moreover, we note that the relative claim terms
“superior”, “ease”, etc. employed in the rejected claims do not serve to
patentably distinguish the claimed towel from Eng’s fabric.
While Eng does not explicitly describe a cleaning, hand
maneuverability, finger grasping functionality for their fabric, it is clear
from a fair reading of Eng that it would be reasonable to infer such
functionality from the fabric of Eng given the substantial correspondence
thereof with the structural features required of Appellant’s towel, especially
given that such hand and finger grasping characteristics would be expected
of a fabric used in an article of clothing as described by Eng. Concerning
the foldable edge feature of independent claim 11, we note that Appellant
does not argue that this feature distinguishes the claimed towel over the
fabric product of Eng.3 In this regard, we note that appealed claim 11 does
not require that the towel edges are in a permanently folded condition and it
is readily inferable that the flexible clothing fabric product of Eng has edges
that are foldable. When a claimed product appears to be substantially
identical to a product disclosed by the prior art, the burden is on the
Applicant to prove that the product of the prior art does not necessarily or
inherently possess characteristics or properties attributed to the claimed
3 Arguments not made in the Briefs are considered to be waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(vii) (2006).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013