Ex Parte Ward - Page 5

                Appeal 2006-2290                                                                               
                Application 10/278,190                                                                         

                the increased comfort in the mask” of Reader and thus, “the reference                          
                teaches that one would eliminate the sheet between the electret and the                        
                particles” (id.).  “In this regard, Applicant respectfully asks the Board to take              
                judicial notice of the fact that most people find that an electrostatically                    
                charged article placed in contact with their skin produces an uncomfortable                    
                sensation” (id.).                                                                              
                      Appellant further argues “an absorbent uncharged sheet between the                       
                electret and the particles partially shields the particles from” the electret,                 
                reducing “the amount of repulsion to which the particles are subjected” (Br.                   
                6).  Appellant contends the uncharged absorbent sheet would attract and trap                   
                the charged particles and “is diametrically opposed to the teachings of Siess                  
                (id.).  Appellant argues the Examiner’s position results in placing “an                        
                absorbent sheet next to the person’s skin, not between the electret and the                    
                particles” which does not satisfy the limitation of claim 9 (id. 6-7).                         
                      The Examiner responds claim 9 does not exclude any surface from                          
                protection and “the multilayered mask of Siess is shown in direct contact on                   
                an exposed . . . face” (Answer 8).  The Examiner contends                                      
                     Reader was not used to teach placement against the face of the                            
                     mask wearer as Siess shows this, but to show that the multilayer                          
                     mask of Siess comprises two adjacent electrostatically charged                            
                     layers, both made of polymer fibers and the outer layer serves to                         
                     not only function as filtration medium providing comfort, but                             
                     also may function as an absorbent layer required by Appellant’s                           
                     claims (Reader, col. 4, line 65-col. 5, line 14). Reader was used                         
                     more as a supportive teaching reference to show as evidence that                          
                     polymer fiber and paper layers function as absorbent layers in                            
                     face masks. Further, Both [sic] layers of the face mask of Siess                          
                     are electrostatically charged. Siess teaches the charge repels                            
                     airborne agents (Siess, col. 11, lines 44+), naming a repelling                           

                                                      5                                                        

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013