Appeal No. 2001-0344
Application 08/900,254
It is clear from Yamamoto that the paper thus formed, containing both drawn
polyester staple fibers, and undrawn PVA binder fibers, when subjected to the
calendering step in Yamamoto, would cause at least some of the apparently undrawn
PVA fibers to bond (they soften at 70°C, and would be pressed together), and would do
so in a homogeneous and tension-free manner. We therefore disagree with the
Appellant’s characterization that the “Examiner’s assertion of what is ‘reasonably taken’
comes nowhere from the prior art” (Appeal Brief, page 5, lines 11-13).
Simply because the prior art does not use the word “bonding” or “tension-free” or
“without inhomogeneities” in describing the prior art calendering step does not mean
that bonding or the other features are absent, especially when the conditions are known
to those of skill in the art as suitable for bonding and forming a sheet in a tension-free
manner without inhomogeneity.
Other than stating that these features come “nowhere” from the prior art, the
Appellant has done nothing to prove that these features are not inherently present in the
prior art. Thus, examples 13 and 14 appear to meet all the claimed limitations in claim
1, except for the use of a profiled calender roll to form spacers and no flat bonding. The
spacers and lack of flat bonding are supplied by the teachings and suggestion of Norton
to improve the strength of filter material. We therefore affirm this rejection as it applies
to claim 1.
The Appellant further challenges the rejection of claims 2 and 3, which recite a
preheating of the fibrous web (claim 2) and preheating the fibrous web and guiding it
through cooled calender rolls (claim 3). No separate argument is provided for claim 4,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007