Mark J. Levine et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 19, 2019

10730459 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2019)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/730,459 12/08/2003 Mark J. Levine 127506-00702 2911
141216 7590 12/19/2019
McCarter & English, LLP / Albany International
Worldwide Plaza, 825 Eighth Ave.,
31st Floor
New York, NY 10019
EXAMINER
PIZIALI, ANDREW T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1789
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
NYdocket@mccarter.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte MARK J. LEVINE and CHRISTIAN B. WIDEN
__________

Appeal 2018-002097
Application 10/730,459
Technology Center 1700
___________

Before WESLEY B. DERRICK, JEFFREY W. ABRAHAM, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.

DERRICK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant1 filed an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from an
Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 6–8, 13, 23, 25–27, 31,
and 32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Albany
International Corp. Appeal Brief dated September 1, 2017 (“Appeal Br.”),
4.
Appeal 2018-002097
Application 10/730,459

2

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The subject matter of the claims on appeal relates to “[a] fabric
incorporating flattened filaments for use as a support fabric in producing a
nonwoven product by a hydroentangling process.” Specification filed
December 8, 2003 (“Spec.”), Abstract. Claims 1 and 23—reproduced
below—are the sole independent claims on appeal.
1. A hydroentangling apparatus for the production of a
hydroentangled nonwoven product, the improvement
comprising:
a hydroentangling support fabric formed into a continuous belt
and having the mechanical properties and structural strength to
reflect liquid jetted from the hydroentangling apparatus at
sufficient energy to entangle a nonwoven web and comprising
flat filaments having a flat cross-sectional shape, wherein said
filaments flat filaments comprise polymeric resin material.
23. An improved hydroentangling support fabric in a
hydroentangling apparatus for production of a hydroentangled
nonwoven product, the improvement comprising:
said hydroentangling support fabric formed into a continuous
belt and in the hydroentangling apparatus having the
mechanical properties and structural strength to reflect liquid
jetted from the hydroentangling apparatus at sufficient energy
to entangle a nonwoven web and comprising flat filaments
having a flat cross-sectional shape, wherein said filaments flat
filaments comprise polymeric resin material.
Appeal Br. 35–36.
Appeal 2018-002097
Application 10/730,459

3

REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
Claims 23, 25–27, 31, and 32 stand rejected as anticipated by, or in
the alternative rendered unpatentable for obviousness over, Gaisser,2 with
Ngai3 as evidence to establish inherency;
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6–8, 13, 23, 25–27, 31, and 32 stand rejected as
anticipated by, or rendered unpatentable for obviousness over, Chen4;
Claims 23, 25–27, 31, and 32 stand rejected as anticipated by, or
rendered unpatentable for obviousness over, Chiu,5 with Chen as evidence to
establish inherency;
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6–8, and 13 stands rejected as unpatentable for
obviousness over Chiu in view of Chen;
Claim 13 stands rejected as unpatentable for obviousness over Chen in
further view of Wedel6; and
Claim 13 stands rejected as unpatentable for obviousness over Chiu in
view of Chen, in further view of Wedel.
DISCUSSION7
We address the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6–8, 13, 23, 25–27, 31, and
32 as anticipated by, or rendered unpatentable for obviousness over, Chen

2 Gaisser, US 5,857,497, issued January 12, 1999.
3 Ngai, US 6,314,627 B1, issued November 13, 2001.
4 Chen et al., US 5,990,377, issued November 23, 1999.
5 Chiu et al., US 5,429,686, issued July 4, 1995.
6 Wedel et al., US 5,921,000, issued July 13, 1999.
7 We refer to the Specification, the Non-Final Office Action dated
September 1, 2016 (“Non-Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief, the Examiner’s
Answer dated October 20, 2017 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed
December 20, 2017 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2018-002097
Application 10/730,459

4

because this rejection covers all claims on appeal. On this record, we are not
persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner’s decision. We add the
following.
For any ground of rejection, “the examiner bears the initial burden . . .
of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). We consider the record to determine whether
Appellant has identified reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. See In
re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the
Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the
examiner’s rejections,” citing Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI
2010) (precedential)).
As discussed by both the Examiner and Appellant, the Board reversed
an earlier rejection under § 102(b) or, in the alternative, § 103(a) over
Gaisser alone. Ans. 14; Appeal Br. 11; Board Decision dated June 26, 2015
(“2015 Decision”), 9–10. As we explained in the 2015 Decision, the
Examiner had not shown a sound basis for the fabric in Gaisser having the
same or similar structure, but had rather conflated Gaisser’s drying fabric for
a papermaking machine with the hydroentangling support fabric claimed.
2015 Decision, 10. Accordingly, the Examiner had not met his burden for a
prima facie case and the Board reversed the rejection. Id.
Appellant contends that the Board decided that “Appellants have
persuasively shown that a dryer fabric is different from a hydroentangling
fabric.” Reply Br. 2 (citing 2015 Decision generally). Appellant contends,
for example, that “the Board has concurred” with its repeated explanations
that “a dryer fabric and hydroentangling fabric differ.” Id.
Appeal 2018-002097
Application 10/730,459

5

Appellant further contends throughout its briefs that a dryer fabric
differs from a hydroentangling support fabric, e.g.: “[a] dryer fabric would
not be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art as capable of or
adaptable to possessing [sic] the mechanical properties and structural
strength to reflect liquid jetted from a hydroentangling apparatus” (Reply Br.
5 (emphasis omitted)); “a dryer fabric is different from a hydroentangling
fabric” (Appeal Br. 12); “a dryer fabric for a papermaking machine has a
different structure than a hydroentangling fabric” (id. at 13); and “dryer
fabrics do not necessarily and inherently have the same structure as
hydroentangling fabrics . . . as dryer fabrics must be highly permeable, they
are necessarily different in structure” (id. at 15).
Appellant overstates its case with respect to the 2015 Decision. A fair
reading of the decision does not support the proposition that a dryer fabric
necessarily cannot function as a hydroentangling support fabric, or vice
versa. Rather, as explained in the decision, the Examiner failed to meet his
burden to support the rejections. See generally 2015 Decision. We likewise
discern no particular definition for “hydroentangling support fabric” in the
Specification that excludes a fabric simply because it is denoted as a dryer
fabric. See generally Spec.
Appellant attempts to incorporate prior argument and evidence by
reference, “including but not limited to, demonstration that a dryer fabric
and hydroentangling fabric are different.” Appeal Br. 11, fn.1. Such
incorporation by reference does not meet our requirement that the brief
includes arguments that explain why the examiner erred. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(iii). Cf. Gross v. Town of Cicero, III, 619 F.3d 697, 702 (7th Cir.
2010) (“Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in the record.”)
Appeal 2018-002097
Application 10/730,459

6

(quotation and alteration omitted). We properly limit our consideration,
accordingly, to the arguments actually made in the Appeal Brief and the
Reply Brief. Further, we decline to reach the arguments raised for the first
time in the Reply Brief as to “the fallacy of the Examiner’s argument that
alleges a dryer fabric is, or can be, a hydroentangling fabric.” Reply Br. 4;
see also id. at 3–5. Appellant provides no good reason why these arguments
could not have been raised in the Appeal Brief. See generally Reply Br. We
deem them waived, therefore, for purposes of the present appeal. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2).
We now turn specifically to the rejection of the claims as anticipated
by or, in the alternative, as unpatentably obvious over Chen. Chen discloses
absorbent articles, as well as machines and methods for their manufacture.
See generally Chen. These absorbent articles include, for example, those
having a contoured base sheet 1 and an underlying fibrous layer 5. Chen,
Figs. 1–2. Chen also discloses a paper machine suitable for producing the
contoured basesheet depicted in Figure 1. Chen, 26:42–44, 29:64–30:50,
Fig. 4. Chen also discloses that “[s]uitable basesheets can be prepared . . .
with known papermaking techniques” and goes on to identify “[t]hrough-
drying fabrics” from Chiu as being well-suited, while discussing various
methods by which the basesheet may be formed. Id. at 3:25–55. Chiu
discloses the use of flat filaments in its through-drying fabrics. Chiu, 1:45–
53, 3:34–36, 8:42–52, 9:4–24, Figs. 1, 14–16. It is not manifest that Chen
forms the basesheet using hydroentanglement, although it discloses
“hydroentangling to impart apertures by rearrangement of the fibers . . . as
[the fibrous web] resides on a patterned, textured or three-dimensional
substrate that imparts a pattern to the web.” Chen, 5:14–18.
Appeal 2018-002097
Application 10/730,459

7

Chen elsewhere, however, also discloses methods for providing
apertures in a nonwoven web apparently corresponding to the underlying
fibrous layer 5, in a pattern corresponding to a basesheet, which “involves
hydroentangling . . . [which], as is known in the art, can be used to impart
apertures to a nonwoven web” (Chen, 6:2–15), such that “[w]hen the
apertured nonwoven material is then attached to the through-dried basesheet,
the apertures can be aligned with the depressed regions of the basesheet” (id.
at 6:37–39). In particular, Chen discloses the alignment can be achieved by
using “the same kind of throughdrying fabric that was used to mold a three-
dimensional through-dried sheet,” that is, the throughdrying fabric used to
form the basesheet. Id. at 6:21–27.
The Examiner relies on Chen as disclosing “a hydroentangling
support fabric formed into a continuous belt and inherently having the
mechanical properties and structural strength to reflect liquid jetted from the
hydroentangling apparatus at sufficient energy to entangle a nonwoven web
and comprising flat filaments having a flat cross-sectional shape, wherein
said filaments . . . comprise polymeric resin material.” Ans. 6 (citing Chen
5:6–25, 5:64–6:48, 29:64–30:50, 40:26–44). The Examiner further cites
Chen for its incorporation of Chiu (id. at 3:37–41), and Chiu for its
disclosure of belts including flat filaments (Chiu, 1:45–53, 3:28–42, 8:42–
52, 9:4–24, Figs. 1, 14–16).
Appellant contends that Chen is “inapplicable art” and that “Chen
does not disclose, teach, or suggest the claimed invention.” Appeal Br. 17.
Appellant argues independent claims 1 and 23 together, adding additional
argument for some dependent claims. Id. at 17–28, 32–33.
Appeal 2018-002097
Application 10/730,459

8

As to being “inapplicable art,” Appellant argues that “a person of
ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated or have any desire to refer to
Chen” because “[t]he disclosure and invention in Chen does not relate to a
hydroentangling apparatus or fabric.” Appeal Br. 17–18. Appellant argues
that because Chen’s emphasis is on “improved absorbency but increased
comfort for a product user,” an artisan of ordinary skill “seeking to develop
the instantly claimed invention . . . would have no motivation, reason, or
desire to look to Chen.” Id. at 18–19. Appellant also highlights the types of
nonwoven products that can be produced by use of its hydroentangling
support fabric, as well as some of its properties. Id. at 19 (citing 2:26–29,
4:10–14, 14:1–7). As to Chiu, incorporated by reference into Chen,
Appellant argues that “Chen does not rely on Chiu for teaching or disclosing
any elements of hydroentangling.” Reply Br. 18.
Appellant’s argument that Chen is inapplicable is not persuasive of
reversible error. As to the rejection under § 102, there is simply no
requirement that the art is from the same field of endeavor. See In re
Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[T]he question whether a
reference is analogous art is irrelevant to whether that reference
anticipates.”). As to the rejection under § 103, we assess whether Chen is in
the same field of endeavor or is reasonably pertinent to the problem
addressed by the inventor. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir.
2004). Chen relates to absorbent products, including household wipes and
disposable hygiene materials, and explicitly refers to applying a
hydroentangling process to a nonwoven web, which is then included in an
absorbent product. Chen, 1:8–14. Similarly, the Specification sets forth that
“the present invention provides . . . a support fabric [for use] in producing a
Appeal 2018-002097
Application 10/730,459

9

nonwoven product by a hydroentangling process.” Spec. 6:9–12. Chen is,
therefore, in the same field of endeavor.
As to Chen disclosing, teaching, or suggesting the claimed invention,
Appellant focuses on the recited “hydroentangling support fabric formed
into a continuous belt . . . having the mechanical properties and structural
strength to reflect liquid jetted from the hydroentangling apparatus at
sufficient energy to entangle a nonwoven web . . . comprising flat filaments
having a flat cross-sectional shape.” Appeal Br. 19–28. Appellant also
argues separately for certain dependent claims, specifically that no cited
prior art, including Chiu, discloses or renders obvious forming the flat
filaments through calendaring (claims 25–27) or incorporating the flat
filaments into the support fabric (claim 31). Id. at 32–33.
Appellant’s general arguments are grounded on the Examiner erring
in determining that Chen connects a dryer fabric with hydroentangling
because the cited process is for forming apertures in a nonwoven web rather
than entangling a nonwoven web. Appeal Br. 19–28. As to Chen’s
disclosure at column 5, line 54, to column 6, line 48, Appellant argues
specifically that Chen merely provides that hydroentangling can be used to
produce apertures in an already formed nonwoven web and that these can be
aligned with a basesheet that was formed on a through-air-drying fabric. Id.
at 22–23. Appellant contends that “creating apertures in an already formed
nonwoven web is different altogether from generating and entangling a
nonwoven web” and that, accordingly, “a person of ordinary skill in the art
would appreciate that Chen’s disclosure does not disclose, teach, or suggest
an apparatus or fabric for the actual entanglement of a nonwoven web per
the pending claims.” Id. at 23. Appellant further argues that while it “do[es]
Appeal 2018-002097
Application 10/730,459

10

not dispute that Chen discloses a web that can be formed through
hydroentangling,” “the purpose of any disclosure of hydroentangling in
Chen is not to disclose [the] flat, polymeric filaments of the instantly
claimed invention (or the hydroentangling fabric itself), but rather the use of
hydroentangling—generally—to impart apertures and make a web.” Reply
Br. 14–15 (citing Chen, 6:7–21). Similarly, Appellant argues that “Chen
does not reference Chiu in the context of making a web through
hydroentangling, and, what’s more Chiu does not disclose flat filaments for
a hydroentangling fabric.” Id. at 17–18.
As to Chen’s disclosure at column 40, lines 26 to 44, Appellant again
contends that it merely “concerns forming apertures using hydroentangling
on an already formed web.” Appeal Br. 26–27. Appellant also argues it is
different, and thus does not support the hydroentangling support fabric being
the same as that claimed because “this passage refers to the process as a
modified form of hydroentangling,” that is, that “an already formed web
could be placed on a [through-air-drying] fabric that was used for forming
the basesheet.” Id. at 27.
Relying on its contentions that Chen is limited to forming apertures
and does not disclose hydroentangling a nonwoven product per the claimed
invention, Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in relying on Chiu
because “Chen cites Chiu for something other than hydroentangling, i.e., as
a [through-air-drying] fabric.” Appeal Br. 28; see also Reply Br. 20 (“that
Chiu may disclose flat filaments for a dryer fabric . . . does not render the
claims anticipated by Chiu or obvious in view of Chen”). On this basis,
Appellant argues that regardless of what types of filaments Chiu discloses,
“neither Chen nor Chiu disclose a ‘hydroentangling support fabric . . .
Appeal 2018-002097
Application 10/730,459

11

having the mechanical properties and structural strength to reflect liquid
jetted from the hydroentangling apparatus . . . to entangle a nonwoven web.”
Appeal Br. 28.
On this record, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred
reversibly in determining that Chen discloses the apparatus of claim 1 and
the hydroentangling support fabric of claim 23. Appellant’s arguments
focus on a dryer fabric being distinct from a hydroentangling support fabric
and the hydroentanglement process in Chen differing from that
accomplished using a hydroentangling support fabric according to the
claims. Both general issues are, in effect, addressed in discussing what Chen
discloses.
Chen, as discussed above with regard to Appellant’s argument that it
is “inapplicable art,” discloses a process to form apertures in a nonwoven
web that involves hydroentangling, which it identifies as “involving the use
of high pressure water jets to modify a fibrous surface.” Chen, 6:7–10.
Chen, therefore, as determined by the Examiner, reasonably discloses
application of high pressure water jets to impinge on the nonwoven web in
the relied-on process in which apertures are formed in the nonwoven web.
Ans. 22–23. Such application of high pressure water jets to a nonwoven
fiber web supported by a fabric appears to be substantially the same as that
cited by Appellant for the meaning of “hydroentangling apparatus.” See
Appeal Br. 7–8 (citing Spec. 3:25–4:6, 5:31–6:2, 7:19–25); id. at 9 (quoting
November 2012 Brief, Exhibit A).
Also as highlighted by the Examiner, Chen specifically identifies the
process used to form the apertures as hydroentangling, which the Examiner
determines is sufficient to reasonably establish that “the dryer fabric of Chiu
Appeal 2018-002097
Application 10/730,459

12

possesses the mechanical properties and structural strength to reflect liquid
jetted from a hydroentangling apparatus at sufficient energy to entangle a
nonwoven web.” Ans. 23 (emphasis omitted). While Appellant argues that
forming an aperture is somehow different (see, e.g., Appeal Br. 22–23, 28),
or that the apertures are not formed using Chiu’s fabric (see, e.g., Reply Br.
16, 17–18, 20–21), Appellant does not squarely contest with sufficient
evidence the Examiner’s determination that use of the term hydroentangling
reasonably indicates a process in which liquid jetted from the
hydroentangling apparatus is reflected at sufficient energy to entangle a
nonwoven web (see generally Appeal Br.; Reply Br.). Nor does Appellant
address evidence of record that appears inconsistent with its view. The
Reply Brief, for example, reproduces an excerpt from a publication that
discloses “Spunlacing (Hydroentanglement),” describing it as a process in
which:
the finished product is produced by entangling fibers in a
preformed web, . . . using high pressure, columnar water jets
(Figure 2.198). As the jets penetrate the web and deflect from
the forming fabric, some of the fluids splash back into the web
with considerable force. Fiber segments are carried by the
turbulent fluid and become entangled on a semimicron scale.
Reply Br. 10 (citing S. Adanur, Paper Machine Clothing: Key to the Paper
Making Process, Technonic Publishing (1997), 139).
There is also a sufficient basis on this record for the Examiner’s
determination that there is rearrangement of fibers within the nonwoven web
when apertures are formed by hydroentanglement such that they are
considered entangled to some degree. Ans. 22–24. On this record,
particularly, we do not discern a particular level of entanglement to be
required by the claims. Thus, where it is apparent that there is some
Appeal 2018-002097
Application 10/730,459

13

entanglement, the nascent argument that the relied on hydroentanglement
process disclosed in Chen to form apertures in a nonwoven web does not
suffice because there is not enough entanglement is not persuasive. In re
Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (such “arguments fail from the
outset because . . . they are not based on limitations appearing in the
claims”). In this respect, Appellant no longer squarely contests that Chen
discloses that a web can be formed through hydroentangling or that apertures
can be formed. Reply Br. 14 (citing Chen, 6:7–21). Rather, Appellant
argues that the “disclosure of hydroentangling in Chen is not to disclose . . .
the hydroentangling fabric itself” and, particularly, “not to disclose flat,
polymeric filaments of the instantly claimed invention.” Id. at 14–15.
Appellant’s arguments as to the purpose of Chen’s disclosure of
hydroentangling are not persuasive of reversible error because they fail to
squarely address that Chen teaches the use of Chiu’s “[t]hrough-drying
fabrics well suited for formation of three-dimensional webs” to form a
basesheet, and then the use of the same through-drying fabric in
hydroentangling a nonwoven web to form apertures that align with the
features of the basesheet. Chen, 3:25–26, 3:37–41, 6:2–40. Nor are we
otherwise apprised of any deficiency as to the fabrics, as Chen explicitly
teaches the use of through-drying fabrics comprising flat filaments in that it
incorporates Chiu explicitly for its through-drying fabrics, and Chiu
discloses through-drying fabrics with flat filaments, as well as that they are
preferred. See, e.g., Ans. 6. Moreover, Appellant does not squarely contest
that Chen teaches the use of Chiu’s through-drying fabrics with flat
filaments, or that Chiu teaches those including flat filaments are preferred
for through-drying fabrics. See generally Appeal Br. 17–28; Reply Br. 14–
Appeal 2018-002097
Application 10/730,459

14

21. In sum, we find Chen (incorporating Chiu) reasonably discloses
throughdrying fabrics comprising flat filaments, use of these for forming a
basesheet, and a hydroentangling process using the same throughdrying
fabric as used for forming a basesheet that appears at least substantially
similar to the hydroentangling process reflected in the claims’ recitations.
Thus, on this record, we determine the Examiner has sufficiently
established a basis for the throughdrying fabric of Chen (incorporating Chiu)
to be the same or substantially the same as the hydroentangling support
fabric according to the claims, such that the burden was properly shifted to
Appellant to establish that it lacks the claimed “mechanical properties and
structural strength to reflect liquid jetted from [a] hydroentangling apparatus
at sufficient energy to entangle a nonwoven web.”
While claim 1 is directed to a hydroentangling apparatus, Appellant
argued the claim together with claim 23 on the basis of the hydroentangling
support fabric, which was unpersuasive of reversible error. Accordingly, we
are apprised of no reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection for either
independent claim 1 or claim 23. Further, where we find the cited portions
of column 6 of Chen to disclose hydroentangling, Appellant provides no
cogent argument for Chen’s disclosure relating to that hydroentangling
process falling short of disclosing a hydroentangling apparatus.
As to claims 25–27, reciting flat filaments formed by calendaring to
form the flat filaments, the Examiner relies on Chiu disclosing flat filaments
that are identical to or only slightly different from the claimed article. Ans.
9 (citing Chiu, 1:45–53). The Examiner treats these claims as product-by-
process and, thereby, unpatentable even if made by a different process. Id.
Appeal 2018-002097
Application 10/730,459

15

Appellant argues the three claims together on the basis that “it would
not have been understood . . . to use calendaring as claimed in claims 25–27
to produce flat filaments” and that the product is not a dryer fabric. Appeal
Br. 32.
On this record, we are apprised of no reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection because we are directed to no difference in the product
on the basis it was made by a different process or, as discussed above, in that
it is referred to as a dryer fabric.
As to claim 31, reciting that flat filaments are incorporated during
production of the fabric, the Examiner similarly relies on the flat filaments
disclosed in Chiu, column 1, lines 45 to 53, and on the claim as product-by-
process. Ans. 7, 21.
Appellant similarly argues, as for claims 25–27, that the Examiner
fails to provide disclosure in the art and the product is not a dryer fabric.
Appeal Br. 33; see also id. at 32. Likewise, we are not apprised of reversible
error.
Accordingly, on this record, Appellant has failed to identify reversible
error in the rejection of the claims as anticipated by or, in the alternative,
rendered obvious over Chen, and we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4,
6–8, 13, 23, 25–27, 31, and 32.
Because our affirmance of the rejection over Chen disposes of all
claims on appeal, we decline to reach the Examiner’s further rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or § 103.8

8 Appellant’s argument as to the rejection of claim 13 in further view of
Wedel, similar to arguments discussed above, relies on Chen disclosing a
dryer fabric, not a hydroentangling fabric, and this deficiency not being
remedied by Wedel. Appeal Br. 23.
Appeal 2018-002097
Application 10/730,459

16

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.

Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Rejection(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
23, 25–27,
31, 32
102 Gaisser
23, 25–27,
31, 32
103 Gaisser, Ngai
1, 2, 4, 6–8,
13, 23, 25–
27, 31, 32
102/103 Chen 1, 2, 4, 6–8,
13, 23, 25–
27, 31, 32

23, 25–27,
31, 32
102 Chiu
23, 25–27,
31, 32
103 Chiu, Chen
1, 2, 4, 6–8,
13
103 Chiu, Chen
13 103 Chen, Wedel
13 103 Chiu, Chen,
Wedel

Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4, 6–8,
13, 23, 25–
27, 31, 32

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED