Appeal No. 2006-0142
Application No. 10/247,782
Floyd, and states that “[a]fter considering this teaching of
Floyd, one skilled in the art would not conclude that there is a
need to add an additional material to Floyd’s polysaccharide
film in order to keep superabsorbent material from dislodging
from cellulose materials, because Floyd teaches that his
polysaccharide film is effective to adhere the superabsorbent
particles and wood pulp.” Brief, page 12.
Also, beginning on page 1 of the reply brief, appellant
states that “there is no motivation for incorporating such
hydrogen bonding functionality containing binders of Hansen into
the polysaccharide films of Floyd.” Appellant also states
“Floyd does not suggest the need for additional materials to
adhere the superabsorbent particles.”
We are not convinced by such argument for the following
reasons.
As stated by the examiner on page 7 of the answer, Hansen
provides motivation to add the hydrogen bonding functionality
containing binder to the composition of Floyd. The examiner
states that Hansen discloses that one of the problems with the
use of particles to impart properties to a fibrous web is that
the particulate material can be physically dislodged from the
fibers of an absorbent product, and refers to column 2, lines
15-17 of Hansen. More importantly, the examiner notes that
Hansen’s specifically discloses that it is known in the art to
combine more than one binder to supplement the characteristics
of the first binder, and refers to column 37, lines 1-13 of
Hansen. We note that it is well settled that it is generally a
matter of obviousness for one of ordinary skill in the art to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007