Appeal No. 2005-1605
Application No. 10/295,072
Beginning on page 6 of the brief, appellants argue
that Moon fails to teach the presence of fibers in each
process step. Appellants argue that Moon, at best, teaches
that additives can be included in the pre-adhesive
composition, or added at the time of hot melt coating, and
refers to column 9, lines 43-45, in this regard.
Appellants assert that Moon fails to describe which of
these fillers/additives can be included in the pre-
adhesive, and which must be added at the time of hot melt
coating. Brief, pages 6-7.
On page 6 of the answer, the examiner responds and
states that Moon in fact teaches that the additives can be
included in the pre-adhesive composition, or added at the
time of hot melt coating. The examiner states that this is
a broad teaching that the additives of Moon may be added at
either time.
Upon our review of the disclosure found in column 9,
at lines 43-53 of Moon, we agree with the examiner’s
position. Moon does not distinguish between certain
additives regarding when certain additives can be added in
the pre-adhesive composition or at the time of hot melt
coating.
Beginning on page 7 of the brief, appellants also
argue that the combination of Moon and Donermeyer fails to
suggest the presence of inorganic fibers in the process of
Moon.1 Appellants state that the examiner may have
1 Appellants discuss the combination of Moon in view of Röber on pages
9-11 of the brief. Because the examiner relies upon Donermeyer and
Röber in a similar way, our comments on the combination of Moon in
view of Donermeyer address appellants’ position regarding the
combination of Moon in view of Röber. Donerymeyer and Röber are
cumulative of each other.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007