Appeal 2007-1373
Application 10/651,687
Claims 81 and 82 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Feitlowitz in view of Scholz (id.).
Claim 83 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Feitlowitz in view of Drelich (Answer 5).
Appellants contend that Feitlowitz is limited to the impregnation of a
set of stiffening compositions to 100% polyester fabrics, and it is open to
speculation by the Examiner whether these fabrics might have Kawabata
stiffness values within the claimed ranges, much less the specified Kawabata
surface friction values (Br. 6).
Appellants contend that Cross is directed to the application of an
aerated or foamed latex compound to a fabric in a manner that does not
result in the penetration of the compound to the opposite side of the fabric
(Br. 8). Appellants further contend that Cross uses dissimilar materials and
processes to those claimed, and thus there is no reason to presume any
inherent characteristics (id.).
Appellants contend that Scholz is not directed to the issue of surface
friction, but is drawn to fabrics intended for use as orthopedic casting
materials having a stiffness exceeding those claimed (Br. 10). With regard
to Drelich, Appellants merely contend that this reference does not overcome
the shortcomings of Feitlowitz (Br. 12).
Although the Examiner admits that neither Feitlowitz nor Cross
discloses the Kawabata stiffness values or surface friction values as claimed
by Appellants, the Examiner contends that it is reasonable to presume that
these properties are inherent in the reference composites since both
references teach the use of similar starting materials and similar production
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013