Ex Parte Botelho et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 28, 2006

10390459 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 28, 2006)

-1-
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication in a law journal
and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte JOSEPH P. BOTELHO, JEFFREY SCOTT DENTON,
JAMES G. DONOVAN, JOHN M. HAWES,
JOSEPH GERALD O'CONNER and DAVID S. ROUGVIE
________________

Appeal No. 2006-2277
Application No. 10/390,459
________________

ON BRIEF
________________

Before KIMLIN, PAK, and KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-18.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for embossing an industrial process fabric in an
endless loop which functions in the manner of a conveyor in
making paper and paper related products or nonwoven textiles,
said method comprising the steps of:

providing a device having two opposed elements between
which said fabric may be compressed at a preselected level of
compression for a preselected time interval;
Appeal No. 2006-2277
Application No. 10/390,459

-2-
providing at least one of said two elements with an
embossing medium having a preselected embossing pattern;

providing a non-laminated industrial process fabric; and

compressing said fabric between said two opposed elements
of said device at said preselected level of compression for a
preselected time interval to emboss said industrial process
fabric with said preselected embossing pattern, wherein said
fabric so embossed is usable to make said paper, paper related
products, or non-woven textiles.

The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Albert 4,541,895 Sep. 17, 1985
Klowak 4,849,054 Jul. 18, 1989

Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a method for
embossing an industrial process fabric in an endless loop
comprising passing the fabric between two opposed elements
wherein at least one of the two elements has an embossing
pattern thereon. The fabric is non-laminated and its embossed
pattern is used to make paper, paper related products, etc.
Appealed claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Klowak in view of Albert.
Appellants have not presented separate arguments for any
particular claim on appeal. Accordingly, all the appealed
claims stand or fall together with claim 1, and we will limit
our consideration to the examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Appeal No. 2006-2277
Application No. 10/390,459

-3-
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning
of § 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner's rejection for the reasons set forth in
the Answer, and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
There is apparently no dispute that Klowak teaches the use
of a patterned industrial process fabric for imparting a pattern
to paper, paper related products, webs, etc. Klowak is silent
with respect to the process for making the patterned industrial
fabric. However, Klowak refers to the process fabric as an
embossing fabric (column 2, lines 19-31), and expressly teaches
that "[t]he embossing fabric may be of many known types which
are fluid-pervious and have an undulating, patterned surface"
(column 7, lines 34-36). Albert, on the other hand, evidences
that it was known in the art to employ the presently claimed two
opposed elements to impart an embossing pattern on non-laminated
and laminated fabrics. Accordingly, we are convinced that the
examiner has drawn the proper legal conclusion that it would
have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to employ
an embossing process of the type disclosed by Albert, and
Appeal No. 2006-2277
Application No. 10/390,459

-4-
presently claimed, to form the embossed, industrial fabric that
is used by Klowak in forming embossed paper products.
We do not subscribe to appellants' argument that Albert
teaches away from using non-laminated fabric for making the
embossed industrial fabric. While Albert describes
disadvantages associated with using non-laminated fabrics, such
as variations in thickness and compressibility at column 2,
lines 28 et seq., and Albert uses laminated fabric in making the
industrial fabric, Albert provides clear evidence that the use
of non-laminated fabric was known in the art. We note that
appellants have not established on this record that the claimed
non-laminated fabric does not experience the disadvantages
discussed by Albert.
As a final point, we note that appellants base no argument
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected
results, which would serve to rebut the prima facie case of
obviousness established by the examiner.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well-
stated by the examiner, the examiner's decision rejecting the
appealed claims is affirmed.
Appeal No. 2006-2277
Application No. 10/390,459

-5-
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (effective Sep. 13, 2004; 69 Fed. Reg. 49960
(Aug. 12, 2004); 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (Sep. 7, 2004)).
AFFIRMED

EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
CHUNG K. PAK ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
PETER F. KRATZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )

ECK:clm

Appeal No. 2006-2277
Application No. 10/390,459

-6-
Ronald R. Santucci
Frommer, Lawrence & Haug LLP
745 Fifth Ave.
New York, NY 10151