Appeal 2006-2290
Application 10/278,190
Reader column 2, lines 15-30, 40-55 and 65, column 3, lines 1-45, and
column 4, lines 25 and 49-55 (id.).
Appellant finds Siess protects the face “from particles of a first charge
by placing an electrostatically charged sheet having the same charge
between the surface and the particles, such that the charged sheet repels the
particles that are then collected on an electrostatically charged surface of the
opposite charge at” another location, and “[t]he mask shown in Figure 8
includes an electrostatically charged sheet to provide the required repulsion”
(Br. 5). Appellant contends Siess teaches “the mask includes one or more
such charged layers” but “does not teach that the charged layers are in
contact with the person’s face” (id.). Appellant finds that in Reader’s face
mask, the “electrostatically charged sheet (the meltblown layer) is
sandwiched between two spunbonded sheets, the absorbent layers,” termed
“an SMS laminate,” and ‘is chosen to trap particles, not repel them,” thus
improving filtration (id.). Appellant further finds “Reader teaches that a
spunbonded layer is placed next to the face of the mask wearer” (id.).
Appellant contends the Examiner has not shown a motivation “to
transport the teaching of an absorbent sheet bonded to the electrostatically
charged sheet from Reader to Siess because it would provide improved
filtration and comfort” (Br. 6). Appellant contends “Reader teaches two
absorbent sheets, one between the wearer and the electrostatically charged
sheet and one between the electrostatically charged sheet and the source of
the particles” and there is no motivation or guide other than the Specification
to eliminate one sheet or the other in combining this reference with Siess
(id.). Appellant argues that “the sheet next to the wearer’s face . . . provides
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013