Appeal 2007-1168
Application 10/211,407
51. More particularly, Tilton argues that Sorrick is concerned with a
minimum thickness of a meltblown polypropylene layer in the context of
lamination by needling (Br. at 12–13), not an application in which the layers
are bonded together by heat or spray adhesive, as required by the present
claims. (Br. at 13.)
52. Tilton argues further that "the 'minimum thickness' [of the meltblown
layer] mentioned at col. 2 line 4 is never specifically identified in Sorrick
and remains an unknown." (Br. at 12-13.)
53. In his Reply, Tilton clarifies his argument, stating, "[a]bsolutely no
evidence is cited to establish that, if the 'minimum thickness' prior to
lamination recited in Sorrick corresponds to the thickness of the claimed
layer, this same range would translate over to Lutzow et al. and result in the
claimed article after the required processing is complete." (Reply at 2–3.)
54. Tilton also argues that Sorrick relates to a high efficiency, high
capacity filter media in which the needling lamination is essential to provide
the strength, high capacity, lifetime, and efficiency of the filter. (Br. at 16.)
55. In contrast, according to Tilton, Lutzow is concerned with providing a
barrier against liquids passing from one outer layer to another, and teaches
ultrasonic welding to laminate the layers. (Br. at 16.)
56. Therefore, Tilton argues, Sorrick's needling "would perforate the
meltblown fiber layer and destroy the barrier function desired in Lutzow."
(Br. at 16, emphasis not reproduced.)
57. Tilton concludes that the intent, purpose, and function of either
invention are destroyed by the Examiner's proposed combination, and that
the rejection must be reversed. (Br. at 17.)
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013