Appeal 2007-0910
Application 10/108,807
2) Claims 28, 29, and 35 through 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combined teachings of Jeffers, Groten and
Antonacci;
3) Claims 18 through 27 and 30 through 34 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Groten and
Morin; and
4) Claims 28, 29, and 35 through 39 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Groten,
Morin, and Antonacci.
The Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting
the claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
ISSUE
Do the prior art references relied upon by the Examiner teach or
would have suggested forming a nonwoven fabric with the claimed low ion
contents within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103?
FACTS, PRINCIPLES OF LAW, AND ANALYSES
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires a
determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) secondary consideration (e.g., the
problem solved). Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1,
17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467(1966). “[A]nalysis [of whether the subject
matter of a claim is obvious] need not seek out precise teachings directed to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013