Appeal No. 2003-1381
Application No. 09/577,427
Powers also teaches that the bicomponent fiber that can be
used in the matrix can be a “multi-segmented” bicomponent fiber.
See column 3, lines 55-58. Appellant has not argued or shown
that this multi-segmented bicomponent fiber disclosed in Powers
is not a multilobal fiber. Absent evidence to the contrary, we
find that Powers’ teaching of a multi-segmented bicomponent
fiber encompasses appellant’s claimed multilobal fiber.
Therefore, contrary to appellant’s position that the applied art
does not teach a mixture of a multilobal fibers and monolobal
fibers, we find that Powers suggests such a mixture.
We have carefully considered appellant’s argument that he
has recognized an advantage which is the complete opposite of
teachings of Powers, i.e., that increased levels of monolobal
fibers will result in decreased filter efficiency when added to
multilobal fibers. (Brief, page 7.)
We do not find that Powers teaches that increased levels of
monolobal fibers to multilobal fibers will only increase filter
efficiency. As stated above, Powers states that “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. Also, Powers teaches that
“[a]verage pore size may be adjusted by varying the level or
diameter of the microfiber.” See column 4, lines 15-18.
Appellant’s statement that Powers teaches that increased levels
of monolobal fibers to multilobal fibers will only increase
filter efficiency does not take into consideration other
factors, such as fiber size, which can effect filter efficiency.
Furthermore, we note that where general conditions of the
appealed claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not
inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine
experimentation, and appellants have the burden of proving any
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007