Appeal 2007-2188
Application 10/150,667
In light of the above, we do not find Appellants’ argument with
respect to a lack of motivation for the Examiner’s proposed combination of
the teachings of Prevorsek and Fels to be persuasive of any reversible error
in the stated rejection.
Appellants argument that the references teach away from the
combination thereof because Prevorsek teaches that a penetration resistant
fabric should have a base weight calculated to be greater than the here
claimed 220 g/m2 is untenable (Br. 7). Such argument is not persuasive
because Prevorsek is not limited to the calculated base weight of 271 g/m2
reported by Appellants for the Example 2 fabric layers of Prevorsek.
Indeed, as explained by the Examiner, Prevorsek discloses that lower denier
yarns than that employed in Prevorsek’s Example 2 can be employed in
forming the fabric layers, including yarn deniers that would yield a fabric
with a base weight within the claimed range of less than or equal to 220
g/m2, as Appellants’ representative claim 1 requires (Answer 7). In other
words, Prevorsek with or without Fels is reasonably suggestive of a
protective material including fabric that has a base weight within the claimed
range based on Prevorsek’s disclosure of a preference for using low denier
fibers (Answer 7; Prevorsek, col. 6, ll. 54-60).
Upon reconsideration of the evidence of record together with the
Examiner’s obviousness assessment based thereon and Appellants’
arguments to the contrary, we determine that the evidence, on balance,
weighs in favor of a determination of the obviousness of the claimed subject
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Accordingly, we affirm the
Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 3-12, 15, 16, 33, 35-44, 47-53,
75, and 76 over Prevorsek and Fels.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013