Appeal No. 2005-2556
Application No. 10/142,512
also argue that Yamada does not teach “an apparatus for the
production of nonwovens.” As such, appellants argue that Yamada
does not teach each and every limitation of the claim.
Beginning on page 4 of the answer, the examiner’s position
is that while Yamada does not expressly state that the fabric
formed with the elliptical filaments carry less air volume than
a fabric containing round filaments, such properties would be
inherent of a fabric woven with flat-shaped filaments according
to Yamada. Answer, pages 4-5. Also, on page 13 of the answer,
the examiner again points out that Yamada sets forth the
structure as claimed. More specifically, the examiner refers to
the idiomatic translation at paragraph 25, and states that
Yamada teaches it is desirable to use an “elliptical (flat)
shape” filament for making a woven fabric. We agree with the
examiner’s position, and add the following for emphasis.
With regard to appellants’ argument that Yamada does not
teach an apparatus for the production of nonwovens, the examiner
correctly points out that Yamada teaches that the fabrics are
useful for a net conveyer used in an adhesion process of making
nonwoven fabrics by thermal bonding, and refers to paragraphs 1,
28, 29, and 45 of Yamada. Answer, page 4. Appellants have not
fairly explained, must less proven, how the claimed apparatus
for forming a non-woven fabric patentably distinguishes over the
net conveyor for making non-woven fabrics via the adhesion
process of Yamada.
On page 3 of the reply brief, appellants argue that it is
not enough to merely allege that because a document purportedly
recites disparate yarn shapes, that the document must
“inherently” speak to the instantly claimed invention.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007