Appeal 2007-1220
Application 10/688,033
would occur in the ordinary course without real innovation retards progress
and may, in the case of patents combining previously known elements,
deprive prior inventions of their value or utility.” Id. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at
1396.
In this case, products are developed in response to “market pressure,”
as noted by Appellants in their “Background” section. (See Spec. 1.) Thus,
advances would have been expected to occur “in the ordinary course without
real innovation.” Given such a situation, claims 24 and 40 would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art. (FFs 1-11.)
The Rejection of Claims 35, 37-39, 47, and 49
Claims 35 and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Higashinaka and Reither. These claims each require a “tenacity of at
least 4.0 grams per denier.” Claims 37 and 38 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Higachinaka and Suzuki. Claims 37 and 38
require a “Gurley stiffness” of “less than 500 mg” and “less than about 200
mg” respectively. Claims 39 and 49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Higashinaka and Love. These claims each require a “greige
basis weight of less than about 300 grams per square meter.”
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s findings that these
additional limitations are disclosed in Reither, Suzuki, and Love,
respectively. Instead they argue (1) these claims are “non-obvious at least as
depending from non-obvious base claims 24 and 40” (Br. 7-8). Appellants’
argument based on the patentability of claims 24 and 40 is addressed above
(see supra pp. 3-8).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013