Appeal No. 1997-4392
Application No. 08/639,515
In securing the plurality of loopy threads onto the sheet, one
would have to either sequentially or simultaneously bond the loopy
threads onto the sheet. Although of [sic] these methods would
have been [sic] obvious choice in the art in securing
loopy yarns to a sheet in the process of making the female
connector sheet of Altman, it would appear that simultaneous
bonding of the loopy yarns would be preferable since it is more
efficient and less time-consuming. Furthermore, there are also
only two logical and convenient ways to adhesively bond the
plurality of loopy yarns simultaneously onto the sheet.
The first method would be to use a sheet precoated with
an adhesive which is now simply referred to as an adhesive
applicator . . ..
The second method is to directly coat the bonding side of
the loopy yarns with adhesive, such as spraying or hot melt
preformed adhesive film, prior to bonding the loopy yarns to the
sheet. Hence, this process also would intrinsically form a thin
layer of adhesive on the bonding side of the loopy yarns so that
the adhesive also would spans [sic] the space between the
threads. (Answer, pg. 6).
The examiner, however, points out that Altman is silent on a method of making the loopy yarn.
The examiner applies Eschenbach to teach that it is common knowledge in the art to produce a loopy
yarn by feeding the effect yarn at a greater rate than that of the core yarn.
We do not agree with the examiner’s reasoning for the rejection of appellant’s independent
claim 12 as set forth above. First, we find that none of the applied references actually disclose or
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007