Ex Parte Mitchler et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2005-1207                                                        
          Application No. 10/126,342                                 Page 2           

                    10. A substantially nondusting meltblown web,                     
               comprising at least one air-formed layer comprising                    
               meltblown fibers and particles, the particles being                    
               retained within the layer by surface penetration into                  
               the meltblown fibers.                                                  
                    13. A substantially nondusting meltblown web,                     
               comprising at least one layer comprising meltblown                     
               fibers, particles and staple fibers, the particles                     
               being retained within the layer by surface penetration                 
               into the meltblown fibers, the staple fibers engaging                  
               at least some of the meltblown fibers to space the                     
               meltblown fibers apart from each other, and the staple                 
               fibers being retained within the layer by entanglement                 
               with the meltblown fibers.                                             
               The prior art references of record relied upon by the                  
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                              
          Brooker et al. (Brooker)           4,979,318      Jan. 10, 1989             
          McFarland et al. (McFarland)       4,604,313      Aug. 05, 1986             
               Claims 10-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as                
          being unpatentable over Brooker in view of McFarland.                       
               We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for            
          a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by               
          appellants and the examiner concerning the issues before us on              
          this appeal.                                                                
                                       OPINION                                        
               Having carefully considered each of appellants* arguments              
          set forth in the brief and reply brief, appellants have not                 






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007