Appeal No. 1999-2601
Application 08/862,682
the spreader surfaces, of hydrodynamic wedges which
generate a forced flow through the filament bundle.
This is because it is favorable for the geometry of the
spreader surfaces to be such that the nips defined by
the spreader surfaces and the incoming band to be
filled with melt and for the fiber bundles not to be
brought into direct contact with the feed opening for
the melt. The melt can be fed in at any desired point
of the impregnating device of preferably undulatory
design, provided the fibers do not come into contact
with this point. . . .
The process according to the invention is surprising in
that it could not be expected that such high tensions
on the fibers and the absence of contact between the
fibers and the feed opening for the melt would permit
the use of such highly viscous polymers and hence the
achievement of such a high impregnation quality. What
is particularly surprising is that the impregnation
speeds achieved by this method are very much higher
[specification, pages 3 and 4].
In accordance with the foregoing explanation, process claims
5 and 7, the two independent claims on appeal, require a
thermoplastic polymer melt having a viscosity of 105 to 2500 PA@s
measured at a low shearing rate, a filament tension upon entering
the first spreader surface of from 5N to 50N per 4000 single
filaments, a filament speed of at least 3 m/min, and a feed
opening for the melt which is not in contact with the filaments.
As conceded by the examiner (see pages 7 through 9 and 12 through
16 in the answer), Azari and Glemet, the primary references
respectively applied to support the appealed rejections, fail to
respond to at least the tension limitations. The examiner’s
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007