Appeal No. 2005-1207
Application No. 10/126,342 Page 8
as the polymer and baking soda as the particulate in a manner
strikingly similar to Brooker.4 Thus, we are not persuaded by
appellants’ comments seemingly suggesting that an alleged
adhesive polymer requirement of Brooker represents a patentable
distinction.
Concerning separately argued representative claim 13 and the
claims depending therefrom, appellants further argue that Brooker
does not disclose using staple fibers and that McFarland is
distinct from Brooker. However, for reasons set forth by the
examiner in the answer and in addition to those discussed above,
appellants’ contentions do not persuasively refute the examiner’s
position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention to add staple fibers to
the web of Brooker to modify the properties thereof, such as the
absorbency, as taught by McFarland. See, e.g., column 8, lines
3 - 8 of McFarland.
As a final point we note that no evidence of unexpected
results has been submitted and argued by appellants in the
briefs.
4
4 The temperature of the air-entrained baking soda powder
stream exiting the particle feeder is not specified in Example 3
of Brooker.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007