Appeal 2007-1323
Application 10/032,701
Lastly, we recognize Appellants’ argument concerning the processing
of the article on a manufacturing line (Br. 9-10). We note, however, that the
claims do not contain any particular process requirements. Accordingly, we
do not find this argument persuasive.
On reflection, we find that the Examiner has set forth a prima facie
case that claim 11 would have been obvious over Igaue, which Appellants
have not rebutted. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 12-13, 15, 17-20, 31-34, 36-40, and 46 fall
together with claim 11.
Claim 14:
Claim 14 depends from and further limits claim 11 to require that the
body panel has a tensile strength of less than about 6.62 lbf across the line of
weakness. The Examiner relies on Igaue as set forth above (Answer 3-5).
Appellants assert that their arguments regarding claim 11 apply to
claim 14 as well (Br. 11). For the reasons set forth above, we are not
persuaded by these arguments. Appellants’ only other argument relates to
Igaue’s disclosure of a bond line having a bond strength of “1000 g/inch or
higher. . .” (Br. 11-12). We note, however, that Igaue teaches that the bond
line is distinct from the cutting line (Igaue 3). Accordingly, we are not
persuaded by Appellants’ argument.
Claim 14 requires that the garment of claim 11 have a tensile strength
of less than about 6.62 lbf across the line of weakness. As the Examiner
recognizes, Igaue is silent with regard to the tensile strength across the line
of weakness (Answer 4). However, as discussed above, “it is not inventive
to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013