Appeal No. 2005-1207
Application No. 10/126,342 Page 7
bound by. As such, appellants have not substantiated that
argument on this record.3
As for appellants remarks concerning the use of adhesive
polymers in Brooker, we note that Brooker teaches that:
any polymer that is sufficiently tacky, between
the die tip and the collecting surface, to hold onto
the particles that contact it, can be used as the
polymeric material for the meltblown fibers, and
thereby qualifies as adhesive polymers. In reality,
this includes most polymers that are capable of being
meltblown.
In other words, that contention of appellants, to the extent
appellants are arguing that the use of adhesive polymers by
Brooker represents a material difference in the web product of
Brooker from that called for in representative claim 10, is
misplaced. For example, we note that Brooker employs
polypropylene as the polymer and baking soda as the particulate
in Example 3 thereof and appellants’ representative claim 10 not
only encompasses those materials but as evidenced by appellants’
specification Example 3, appellants exemplify using polypropylene
3 Indeed, that argument of appellants is undercut by the
present record. See page 12 of the prior art European Patent
Application publication No. 0 156 160 appellants submitted of
record wherein it is explained that the tackiness of fibers
during inclusion of particulate material results in partial
embedding (penetration) of the particles in the fibers.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007