Appeal No. 2002-0224
Application 08/628,327
examiner argues that the reference cited by Maruscak for an
exemplary fluorochemical treatment (U.S. 4,508,775 to Adiletta)
teaches that a fluorochemical additive can be applied in a blend
containing glass fibers and polymeric material before formation
into a fiber filter web. See id. The appellants’ term “within
the web” in claim 23, however, given its broadest reasonable
interpretation in view of the specification and prior art, see In
re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir.
1989), means that the additive is within the fibers rather than
being applied to the fibers as a surface treatment (see, e.g.,
specification, pages 9-10). Adiletta applies his treating agent
to the surface of fibers, rather than incorporating it into the
fibers (col. 5, lines 1-8).
The examiner argues that Murphy discloses using a melt
processible, silicone-free, fluorochemical additive within a
polychlorotrifluoroethylene electret fiber web to ensure charge
stability especially under high moisture or humidity conditions,
and that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to include Murphy’s additive in Matsuura’s fibers to
obtain this benefit (answer, page 7). Murphy teaches that his
polychlorotrifluoroethylene fibers can contain 2-3 wt% additives
and impurities (page 1, lines 67-71). Murphy’s disclosed
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007