Appeal 2007-1222
Application 10/464,914
(a) claims 1-5, 7-10, 12, 13, 16-21, 43-49, 51-54, 56, 57, and 60-65
over Alberts in view of Ellis and Lickfield; and
(b) claims 1-5, 7, 9-14, 16-21, 43-49, 53-58, and 60-65 over Alberts in
view of Ferencz and Lickfield.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions advanced by
Appellants and the Examiner. In so doing, we concur with Appellants that
the Examiner has failed to establish a prima case of obviousness for the
claimed subject matter. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejections.
Alberts, the primary reference in both rejections, provides a broad
disclosure of utilizing a wide variety of materials for manufacturing shirts,
gowns, jackets, coats, etc. Alberts discloses that the web of fabric may be
any suitable material, such as woven material, non-woven material, fibrous,
polymeric, liquid pervious, liquid impervious, etc. (see col. 9, ll. 28 et seq.).
Alberts also teaches that the outer surface of the laminate may be liquid
pervious or impervious (col. 10, ll. 61 et seq.). Hence, while it is certainly
possible to pick and choose specific materials within the broad disclosure of
Alberts for the inner and outer layers of the laminate and arrive at a
multilaminate within the scope of the appealed claims, there is no teaching
or suggestion in the reference for making the specific selections conducted
by Appellants. We agree with Appellants that “[t]here is no discussion,
suggestion, teaching or hint that the particular combination of an inner layer
and an outer layer be made with regard to the melting point of the fabric;
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013