Appeal 2007-2188
Application 10/150,667
ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements” in the manner
claimed. KSR Int’l Co., 127 S. Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
The Examiner has determined that Prevorsek teaches or suggests a
fabric corresponding to the representative claim 1 fabric but for explicitly
teaching a fabric “base weight of less than or equal to 220 g/m2” (cl. 1;
Answer 3 and 4; Prevorsek, Abstract, col. 2, l. 65- col. 3, l. 16, col. 3., ll. 7-
57, col. 5, ll. 4-10, col. 5, l. 56-col. 6, l. 3, col. 6, ll. 54-60, and col. 11, ll. 19-
40).
The Examiner relies on Fels for disclosing protective wear including
coated aramid woven fibers wherein the woven aramid fabrics have a weight
of 50-500 g/m2 (Answer 4; Fels, col. 4, ll. 42-58).
The Examiner takes the position that: “[i]t would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made the protective article of
Prevorsek et al. with the basis weight of Fels et al. motivated by the desire to
create a garment with improved wearing comfort (lighter weight) while
ensuring good protective action…” (Answer 4).
The principal arguments presented by Appellants in the Brief concern
the claimed base weight. Appellants contend that it is possible to derive the
base weight of the fabric used by Prevorsek for a protective material and
present a calculated value of 271 g/m2 for the Example 2 fabric of Prevorsek
(Br. 4-5). Appellants also contend that the 50-500 g/m2 base weight material
of Fels is a non-protective material for puncture proofing absent a hard
solids coated layer (Br. 6). Based on these assertions, Appellants contend
that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have been motivated to use the
non-protective lower base weight fabric or properties of the fabric of Fels in
a protective material or garment according to Prevorsek (Br. 5-7).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013