Appeal 2007-1373
Application 10/651,687
Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s findings and combination of
Drelich with Feitlowitz other than to repeat their arguments against the
primary reference (Br. 12). Accordingly, we adopt the findings and
conclusion of law as stated in the Answer (see factual finding (5) listed
above). With regard to Appellants’ arguments against Scholz (Br. 10), we
note that Scholz was merely applied to show a similar textile fabric
impregnated with a resin to achieve a controlled stiffness, with a teaching
that desired yarns have a low denier of no greater than 500 denier (see
factual finding (6) listed above). We also note that Cross exemplifies a
product the same as or similar to the claimed product where the backing
material is made from a textile with a denier of 150 (see factual finding (4)
listed above). Accordingly, we determine that selection of the appropriate
denier for the textile backing or substrate of the Feitlowitz product would
have been suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art from the teachings of
Scholz.
For the foregoing reasons and the reasons stated in the Answer, we
affirm all grounds of rejection presented in this appeal. The decision of the
Examiner is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013