Ex Parte Reiterer et al - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2004-0567                                                        
          Serial No. 09/628,704                                                       
               1.  A tack pad having opposite major surfaces and a                    
          thickness of at least about 5mm comprising a non-woven cross-laid           
          carded web having a multi-layer structure which is needle-tacked            
          and bonded, at least one major surface of which is impregnated              
          with an acrylic tackifier.                                                  
               8.  A method of making a tack pad comprising the steps of              
          forming a non-woven, cross-laid multi-layer web which includes              
          carded thermo-bonding fibers, needle tacking the cross-laid web             
          to provide a web having a thickness of at about 5 mm,                       
          impregnating at least one major surface of the needle tacked web            
          with a heat-reactive acrylic tackifier, and heating to thermally-           
          bond the web and cure the tackifier.                                        

                                   THE REFERENCES                                     
          Neal                              3,056,154        Oct.  2, 1962            
          Lester                            3,780,392        Dec. 25, 1973            
          Pässler et al. (Pässler)          4,352,846        Oct.  5, 1982            
          Schoonen et al. (Schoonen)        1,305,839        Aug.  4, 1992            
               (Canadian patent)                                                      
                                   THE REJECTIONS                                     
               The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows:            
          claims 1-3, 5, 6 and 8 over Pässler in view of Schoonen;                    
          claims 4, 9 and 10 over Pässler in view of Schoonen and Lester;             
          and claim 7 over Pässler in view of Schoonen and Neal.                      
                                       OPINION                                        
               We reverse the aforementioned rejections.  We need to                  
          address only claims 1 and 8, which are the sole independent                 
          claims.1                                                                    

               1 The examiner does not rely upon Lester or Neal for any               
          disclosure that remedies the deficiency in the combination of               
                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007