Appeal 2007-1220
Application 10/688,033
times a nominal diameter of the hook filaments,” discloses a range for this
ratio that would have rendered Appellants’ claimed invention obvious.
(Answer 3-4.)
With respect to claim 24, we frame the § 103(a) issue: Would the
skilled artisan have been motivated to make Appellants’ claimed product,
with the ratio of hook filament height to diameter limited to “less than about
6.0” in view of Higashinaka’s disclosed ranges that encompass those of
claim 24?
CLAIM 40: BASE THICKNESS LESS THAN HOOK FILAMENT DIAMETER
Appellants contend Higashinaka does not disclose the limitation of
claim 40 “wherein the fabric base has an overall thickness, exclusive of the
hook filaments, that is less than the nominal hook filament diameter.”
Appellants further contend “it would be improper and a non sequitur to
compare the lower limit on the preferred range of base thickness (0.3) to the
upper range of hook filament diameter (0.4) and conclude that Higashinaka
discloses a hook product with a base thickness less than the hook filament
diameter.” (Br. 6.)
The Examiner contends Higashinaka’s disclosed ranges encompass
values that meet Appellants’ claimed relationship between their base
thickness and hook filament diameter and that “Higashinaka never excludes
the possibility of having the highest value of the hook filament diameter
being used with a low value of the base thickness.” (Answer 11-12.)
The § 103 issue with respect to claim 40 in view of Higashinaka is,
would the skilled artisan have been motivated to make Appellants’ claimed
product, with a base thickness less than that of the hook filament diameter in
view of Higashinaka’s disclosed ranges that encompass those of claim 40?
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013