Appeal No. 2003-1381
Application No. 09/577,427
On pages 5-6 of the Brief, appellant argues that Midkiff
does not teach to add monolobal fibers to bicomponent multilobal
fibers and that Powers also does not teach to add monolobal
fibers to bicomponent multilobal fibers. See also pages 1-4 of
the Reply Brief. On page 7 of the Brief, appellant states that
he has recognized that increased levels of monolobal fibers
result in decreased filter efficiency when added to multilobal
fibers.
In response, on page 5 of the Answer, the examiner states
that Powers teaches that adding monolobal fibers controls the
pore size of the web, which in turns customizes the filter
efficiency. The examiner states this would be true whether the
filter efficiency is increased or decreased by adding the
monolobal fibers, since these are methods of customizing the
filter efficiency, which is related to the overall pore size of
the web.
Upon our review of Powers, we find that Powers teaches that
“ . . . it has been found that the microfiber may be used to
customize the porosity of the bicomponent fiber matrix. Average
pore size may be adjusted by varying the level or diameter of
the microfiber.” See column 4, lines 15-18. Powers also
teaches that “[a]ccording to the present invention, filtration
structures may be customized to a desired filter efficiency by
using microfiber to control pore size of the bicomponent fiber
matrix”. See column 2, lines 19-22. Hence, Powers teaches that
the porosity can be customized depending upon factors such as
the amount of microfibers and size of the microfiber, and that
filter efficiency can be adjusted according to porosity. Hence,
we agree with the examiner that Powers teaches that the use of
monolobal fibers is a factor in customizing filter efficiency.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007