Appeal No. 2005-2487
Application 08/900,254
V. The Prima Facie Case of Unpatentability
The examiner has found that Yamamoto discloses (1) a method of forming a
paper-like polyester sheet by blending undrawn polyester fibers with drawn polyester
fibers, and forming a paper-like sheet from the blend. (Examiner’s Answer, Page 4,
lines 15-18). This disclosure is found at Yamamoto column 2, lines 26-28 and 64-66.
The examiner has also found that Yamamoto discloses fuse-bonding the
undrawn fibers at a low temperature range of 110º-120º C. (Yamamoto, column 3, lines
9-21). The examiner concludes that this disclosure reasonably suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art that the undrawn fibers should be activated in some way. As
there are only a few conventional and known ways (citing Thornton, Petranyi, Frank,
and Gosden) to activate and calender the fibers (i.e. heating the web and using a
heated/room temperature/chilled roller or not heating the web and using a heated roller)
the examiner concludes that preheating the web (2) and cold rolling once
(3)(3a)(3b)(3c) is an A or B design choice made by one of skill in the art. (Examiner’s
Answer, page 7, line 7 – page 9, line 5.) The examiner has also found that Yamamoto
teaches away from reheating in that it would cause disfigurement of the finished pleated
filter (Examiner’s Answer, page 9, lines 6-13). The appellant agrees that this
interpretation of Yamamoto is not inconsistent with his position (Appeal Brief, page 9,
lines 22-24).
Relying on Yamamoto’s disclosure of calendering the filter material (Yamomoto,
column 5, lines 1-4), and Norton’s disclosure of forming pleated filter paper by
calendering a fibrous sheet using profiled calender rolls (Norton, Figures 1 and 2), the
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007