Appeal No. 2005-2487
Application 08/900,254
the time the invention was made to calender (3) the paper-like sheet using profiled
calender rolls (3a). (Examiner’s Answer, page 5, lines 9-17). The examiner observes
that one of ordinary skill in the art was capable of choosing from the known methods of
forming pleated filters and had an expectation of success in forming pleated filters.
The examiner has further found that neither Yamamoto or Norton disclose
exerting tension on the fibrous web during a calendering/bonding operation (4a)
(Examiner’s Answer, page 6, lines 1-8). Whether or not this lack of exerted tension
meets the limitation of “in a tension-free manner” is waived issue #4. The appellant has
not challenged this finding.
The examiner has additionally found that Norton discloses avoiding pressed
areas or flat spots (“flat bonding”) (4b) in order to avoid adversely affecting the porosity
or filtering capacity of the paper. (Examiner’s Answer, page 6, lines 17-21). Whether or
not this avoidance of flat spots fits within the definition of “flat bonding” is waived issue
#2. The appellant has not challenged this finding.
The examiner has also found that the disclosure of Yamamoto that the blend of
fibers is uniformly dispersed and the resultant sheet has satisfactory properties. The
examiner has concluded that this suggests that there are no inhomogeneities (4c) over
the cross section of the nonwoven fabric. (Examiner’s Answer, page 5, line 18 – page
6, line 1). Whether or not this uniform dispersion of the fibers fits within the scope of
“without inhomogeneities” is waived issue #3. The appellant has not challenged this
finding.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007