Appeal 2006-2290
Application 10/278,190
material named “filterette”, implying filtering functionality.
Reader teaches the charged layers provide overall filtration in a
multilayered face mask, made of . . . the same polymer fibers, . . .
all the ingredients provide additional functionality that includes
absorbency (Reader, col. 3, lines 1-14, col. 4, line 65-col. 5, line
14, and col. 5, lines 66+).
Answer 8-9.
The Examiner further contends “the mask of Reader is multilayered
and made of the same material of [sic] the mask of Siess” which “shows the
dual layered mask placed in direct contact and on a person’s face (Siess,
FIG. 5-7), thus the bottom layer is in contact with an exposed surface, and
neither reference teaches the mask is uncomfortable” (id. 9). The Examiner
contends that “Siess and Reader are comprised of the same material and
form the same structure . . . [and] would be expected to perform in the
desired function” and “Appellant has not presented evidence to show the
particles will be trapped and that particles are partially shielded from an
electrostatic field is an absorbent layer is employed” (id. 10). The Examiner
contends Siess “Figs. 5-7, explicitly [illustrate] the mask on a face and in
direct contact with the skin” and “contains two layers of electrostatically
charged surfaces . . . made of polymer fibers,” and Reader’s mask is “made
of polymer fibers and are electrostatically charged (id.). “Reader is used to
show the top fiber layer of Siess functions as an absorbent layer, and the
teachings in combination would make the instant invention” (id.).
Appellant replies the Examiner now relies on Siess’ teaching of two
electrostatically charged layers and on Reader for alternative absorbent
forms of the outer layer without a showing that other absorbent materials can
be electrostatically charged (Reply Br. 1-2). Appellant contends the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013