Appeal 2007-1373
Application 10/651,687
steps to those of Appellants (Answer 3-4 and 6-7). Alternatively, the
Examiner contends that the claimed stiffness values would have been
obvious in view of the teachings in both references of adjusting the stiffness
level (id.).
The Examiner contends that Scholz teaches that desirable elastic
stretch yarns for a backing material that is impregnated with a resin should
have a low denier that is no greater than about 500 denier (Answer 4).
Accordingly, the issues presented from the record in this appeal are as
follows: (1) although neither Cross nor Feitlowitz disclose any Kawabata
values for stiffness or surface friction, has the Examiner established a
reasonable basis that these values would have been inherent or at least
obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art?; and (2) has the Examiner
identified a proper reason for the combination of Scholz with Feitlowitz?
We determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
anticipation and obviousness in view of Cross or Feitlowitz, which prima
facie case has not been adequately rebutted by Appellants’ arguments. We
further determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness in view of Feitlowitz, Drelich, and Scholz, which prima facie
case has not been adequately rebutted by Appellants’ arguments. Therefore,
we AFFIRM all grounds of rejection presented in this appeal essentially for
the reasons stated in the Answer, as well as those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
We determine the following factual findings from the record in this
appeal:
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013