Appeal No. 2003-1381
Application No. 09/577,427
each of the multilobal fibers including a multilobal
region on the first side and an opposing rounded region on
the second side, the multilobal region including at least
one pair of raised lobal regions and a depressed region
between each pair of raised lobal regions; and
a plurality of monolobal fibers.
On page 5 of the brief, appellant requests that claims 23-
50 be considered together. Hence, we consider claim 23 in this
decision. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(8)(2000).
Claims 23-40 and 42-50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Midkiff in view of Powers.
Claim 41 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Midkiff in view of Powers and further in view
of Largman.
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of unpatentability:
Largman 5,069,970 Dec. 3, 1991
Powers 5,580,459 Dec. 3, 1996
Midkiff 5,707,735 Jan. 13, 1998
OPINION
Critical to the determinations made in this decision, is
the issue of whether its would have been obvious to make a
nonwoven web composite comprising a mixture of (1) bicomponent
multilobal fibers and (2) monolobal fibers. It is not disputed
that Midkiff teaches a filter matrix of bicomponent multilobal
fibers. (Brief, page 5). Our focus, therefore, is on the
teachings of Powers. We do not comment on Largman as Largman is
not pertinent to the resolution of this particular issue.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007