Appeal No. 2005-1969 7
Application No. 09/933,291
Because Darnett does not describe the necessary “hydrophilic composition” as
required by all the claims, the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to the subject matter of all the claims on appeal. As only
Darnett was relied upon to meet the “composition” requirement, it is unnecessary to
discuss the other references.
Remand to the Examiner
Because the error resides in claim interpretation, it is incumbent on the Examiner
to re-evaluate the prior art and the rejections in light of the correct claim interpretation.
In this vein, we note that the Examiner cites Bair as teaching the application of wetting
agents to a nonwoven polyester fiber web to impart hydrophilic character (Answer, p. 7).
Bair describes treating outer fabric layers of a water-absorbing pad with wetting agent to
enhance wicking and absorption of liquids in an absorbent pad. The fabric can be non-
hydrophilic (e.g. polyesters, polyolefins) (Bair, col. 4, l. 46 to col. 5, l. 2). A wetting
agent is a “composition” within the meaning of the claims. The Examiner should
consider this reference as well as others teaching the application of hydrophilic
compositions to nonwoven fibers in re-evaluating the patentability of the claims.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007