Appeal 2007-1220
Application 10/688,033
3. Claims 37 and 382 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Higachinaka in view of Suzuki et al., U.S. 5,294,469
("Suzuki").
4. Claims 39 and 49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Higashinaka in view of Love III, et al., U.S. 2005/0282542
("Love").3
OBVIOUSNESS UNDER § 103(a)
Rejection 1: Higashinaka
CLAIM 24: THE RATIO OF HOOK FILAMENT HEIGHT TO DIAMETER
Appellants contend Higashinaka does not disclose the claim 24
limitation “wherein the hook filaments extend from a near side of the fabric
base to a mean hook height of less than about 6.0 times a nominal diameter
of the hook filaments.” (Br. 4.) While admitting Higashinaka “do include
broad ranges” and “values could be pulled to derive ratios” of hook height to
filament diameter within the range recited in claim 24, Appellants contend
such a disclosure is “insufficient to find Appellants’ specific claimed range
obvious.” (Br. 4.)
The Examiner contends Higashinaka, while not disclosing a
“preferred embodiment where the mean hook height is less than about 6.0
2 Appellants identify this claim as claim 48. (Br. 3.) The Examiner corrects
Appellants’ statement of the Grounds of Rejection by identifying claim 38
rather than 48. (Answer 2.)
3 The Examiner has also objected to claims 28, 30-32, 34 and 43-46 as
containing parenthetical metric conversions of units. This issue is
petitionable under 37 C.F.R. §1.181 and thus not before us.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013