Appeal No. 2006-0778
Application No. 10/266,917
web can be an unbonded layer of loose fibers. See column 12,
lines 43-49 of Goulait. Goulait also teaches that the nonwoven
web can be in the form of a web of entangled fibers. See column
22, lines 39-51 of Goulait. See also the examiner’s findings on
page 14 of the answer in this regard.
In view of the above teachings of Goulait, we agree with the
examiner that Goulait suggests appellants’ claimed subject
matter. While Goulait does not specifically disclose a
“spunlaced” fabric, Goulait suggests the use of a web formed by
mechanical entanglement, such as by carding. Spunlacing is a
well-known mechanical entanglement process. Absent evidence that
spunlacing provides for unexpectedly superior results in the
resultant nonwoven web, we affirm the obviousness rejection.
With regard to appellants’ argument that the claims do not
provide for bonding of the fibers via bonding to a backing
layer, we agree with the examiner’s position on this issue.
That is, at the bottom of page 14 of the answer, the examiner
states that appellants do not claim a loop structure comprising
entangled fibers without a backing layer. Also, dependent
claims 21-32 and 36 through 41 recite that the spunlaced fabric
is bonded to a backing layer. Hence, we are not convinced by
appellants’ argument that the loop structures are formed without
requiring any bonding (either to other fibers or to a backing
layer). On this issue, we are also not convinced by the
declaration of A. Frank Baldwin, Jr. in this regard.
In view of the above, we affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 1 through 32, 36 through 41, and 53 through
55.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007