Appeal No. 96-0298
Application 07/920,230
references and to produce the claimed subject matter. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The teaching or suggestion must flow from the prior art, and not from
applicants* disclosure. In re Dow Chemical Co., 837 F.2d 469, 473, 5 USPQ2d 1529, 1532 (Fed.
Cir. 1988).
In their broadest scope, the claims on appeal are directed to a method of modifying the
triboelectric properties of fiber in a filter medium by selecting a fiber and (i) treating the fiber by
chemical reaction with a preselected reagent, or (ii) ionic bonding of a preselected agent to the fiber,
or (iii) absorption of a preselected reagent into the fiber such that the fiber has a predictable and
consistent triboelectric value.
According to the examiner, the EPA, Frederick (A) and Frederick (B) references each
“disclose that the triboelectric value of a fibrous material, such as a filter medium, may be modified
by surface modification or either chemical reaction, ionic binding, or absorption of a reagent with the
fibers of the material” (answer: p. 4). The examiner points to specific pages of each of these
references to support his finding, but it is not clear to us, and the examiner has not explained, how
he arrived at his finding based on the disclosures on these pages. As for Young, the examiner made
a finding that Young teaches “the use of permanent alteration of triboelectric properties of a fabric
and treatment with a dye reagent for the purpose of ensuring maximum control of the electrostatic
properties of the fabric” (answer: p. 4). While the examiner points us to col. 1, line 23 to col. 2, line
64 in Young for relevant disclosure, we are unable to find in this or any other disclosure in Young
any discussion related to triboelectric properties of polystyrene, polystyrene in the form of a fabric,
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007