Appeal 2007-1222
Application 10/464,914
indeed, the melting characteristics of the fabric layers is not even discussed
in Alberts” (Br. 5, second para.). Also, we find that the additional citations
of Ellis, Ferencz, and Lickfield fail to provide the necessary guidance to one
of ordinary skill in the art to make the appropriate selections from the
Alberts disclosure to arrive at the claimed subject matter.
Ellis, for instance, provides no teaching of overlapping areas of a
multilaminate material such that lower melting point layers are heat sealed at
a temperature below the melting point of the layers out of contact. In
addition, Lickfield discloses outer layers having high and low melting
constituents that are fusion bonded to lower melting constituents of inner
layers. Ferencz, as well, does not teach or suggest Appellants’ heat sealing
of overlapped regions of a multilaminate wherein the temperature is above
the melting point of the overlapped materials in contact with each other but
below the melting point of the material in the outer layers.
Consequently, based on the prior art as a whole, we are convinced that
the Examiner has resorted to impermissible hindsight to construct a method
which corresponds to the one presently claimed.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, we are constrained to reverse
the Examiner’s rejections.
REVERSED
clj
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013