Appeal No. 2006-1587
Application No. 10/020,768
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Helwig ‘879
Claims 1 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Helwig ‘879.
Helwig ‘879 is directed to a non-woven fiber mat comprising
glass fibers and synthetic fibers (col. 2, lines 37-52). Helwig
‘879 teaches that the synthetic fiber may be polyester fibers
(col. 2, lines 45 - 50) and that “[o]ne or more binders may be
used to bind the reinforcement fibers” (col. 2, lines 53 - 55).
Polyvinyl alcohol in powder form is listed among the binders
that can be used (col. 2, lines 59 - 65). The binder “may
include a preliminary binder to at least bind the reinforcement
fibers” and “may include a secondary binder to bond together the
reinforcement fibers to provide . . . substantial resistance to
planar elongation and yet still allow a substantial degree of
planar compressive movement” (col. 3, lines 47-54).
Example 5 of Helwig ‘879 discloses a non-woven fiber mat
comprising 80% by weight of glass fibers (3200 g) and 20% by
weight of polyethylene terephthalate fibers (800 g) bound by a
polyvinyl alcohol binder per Example 1 and saturated with a
secondary binder, per Example 4 (col. 8, lines 60-67). The
Examiner calculates the diameter of the polyethylene
terephthalate fibers of Example 5 to be 12.6 microns.
The Examiner states that Helwig ‘879 does not teach a glass
fiber content of about 10 to less than 50% by weight, a
polyethylene terephthalate fibers content of about 50 to about
90% by weight, or a diameter for the polyethylene terephthalate
fibers of about 6 to about 12 microns required by claim 1
(Answer, page 12). As with the rejection based on the
-15-
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007