Appeal No. 96-0298
Application 07/920,230
or the use of a dye reagent to treat polystyrene for the purpose stated above by the examiner. Young
is specifically directed to suppressing the accumulation of electrostatic charges on polystyrene by
incorporating a copolymer of styrene and maleic anhydride. The examiner has not explained how
the suppression of electrostatic charges is related to triboelectric properties and how polystyrene is
related to fibers used in filter media.
From these findings, the examiner concluded that “it would have been readily obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to employ both permanent alteration of the filter fabric’s triboelectric value
and the use of a dye as a reagent in any one of the EPA, Frederick (A) and Frederick (B) fabric
triboelectric value modification processes in order to facilitate accurate control of the fabric’s
electrostatic properties as taught by Young et al.” (answer: pp. 4-5). We are unable to agree with
the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
We find that the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-32 over the combined teachings of EPA,
Frederick (A), Frederick (B) and Young lacks evidence and scientific reasoning as to why one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Young with the other references and
arrive at the claimed subject matter when, inter alia, Young is not directed to altering triboelectric
values of polystyrene or directed to a fiber specifically useful for use in a filter medium or to any of
the fiber materials disclosed in EPA, Frederick (A) and Frederick (B). The EPA, Frederick (A) and
Frederick (B) references discloses may types of fibers which may be employed as a filter medium, but
none of the fabrics disclosed contain polystyrene.
Thus, we find that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007