Appeal No. 2005-1386
Application No. 10/010,620
respect to the desirability of loft for any additional layers while
Kane teaches a self supporting web with no lamination to a base
layer (Reply Brief, paragraph bridging pages 2-3).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. As correctly noted
by the examiner (Answer, page 4), Arnold is directed towards
producing lofty nonwoven fabrics which comprise spunbonded nonwoven
fabrics which may be combined with additional fabric layers while
Kane teaches that crimped, homopolymeric fibers produce
particularly lofty nonwoven fabrics. See Arnold, col. 1, ll. 26-
27, where it is taught that a drawback to conventional compaction
is the decrease in bulk or loft in the fabric. See also Arnold,
col. 1, ll. 39-43, where the object of the invention of Arnold is
stated as providing a nonwoven web with enough integrity for
further processing without the use of compaction rolls. Finally,
see Arnold at col. 7, ll. 1-25, where it is taught that the fabric
of Arnold may be used in multilayer laminates of spunbond and other
fibers, including the separate production of fabric layers later
combined in a bonding step. Kane teaches a crimped filament layer
that forms a lofted mat having much greater bulk and loft (col. 1,
ll. 53-59), with the entanglements between filaments during
crimping imparting integrity to the lofted mat (col. 7, ll. 5-7).
Accordingly, we agree with the examiner that it would have been
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007