Appeal No. 2005-1386
Application No. 10/010,620
layers onto the first nonwoven fabric (Answer, page 3). The
examiner also finds that Arnold teaches that the layers of the
nonwoven fabric may be subjected to more substantial bonding (id.).
The examiner further finds that Arnold teaches that compacted
fabrics are less desirable because of their decrease in bulk or
loft, and that use of a HAK prevents compacting the nonwoven and
results in a particularly lofty nonwoven (id.).
The examiner recognizes that Arnold fails to teach that “some
of the layers should comprise crimped homopolymeric continuous
fibers.” Id. The examiner applies Kane for the teaching that
particularly lofty nonwoven fabrics may be formed by extruding
crimpable homopolymeric continuous fibers and then heat treating
the fibers to crimp them (Answer, sentence bridging pages 3-4).
From these findings, the examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
appellants’ invention to have formed the fabric of Arnold with
additional layers of crimped homopolymeric fibers of Kane to
produce a particularly lofty web (Answer, page 4).
With regard to the product claims, appellants argue that the
references lack any suggestion for such a combination of the
laminate of Arnold with the lofted mat fibers of Kane (Brief, page
6). Appellants also argue that Arnold gives no teaching with
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007