Appeal No. 2006-0142
Application No. 10/247,782
combine two or materials when each is taught by the prior art to
be useful for the same purpose. In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846,
850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). As such, combining more
than one material in order to keep superabsorbent material from
dislodging is prima facie obvious.
Beginning on page 13 of the brief, appellant also argues
that claim 1 requires that the fiber treatment composition is
“distributed within” the wet-laid web of cellulose fibers. On
page 2 of the reply brief, appellant states that his
specification does not teach that application of a “film,” as
taught by Floyd, to a surface of a wet laid web of fibers would
result in distribution of a polysaccharide within the film. We
are also not convinced by this argument, for the following
reasons.
As pointed out by the examiner on page 9 of the answer,
Hansen teaches conventional methods of applying binder to
cellulose fibers which include spraying, roll coating, dipping,
or by forming a slurry of loose fibers and binder, and refers to
column 41, lines 47-63 and column 43, lines 48-55 of Hansen.
The examiner points out that Hansen teaches that rollers may be
utilized to assist in distributing the binders through the web,
and refers to column 42, lines 54-60 of Hansen.
In view of the examiner’s findings, we agree with the
examiner’s position that the applied art suggests that the fiber
treatment composition is distributed “within” the wet-laid web
of cellulose fibers.
Appellant separately argues other claims on pages 18-29 of
the brief. We have carefully reviewed these arguments in
connection with the respective claim. In response, we agree
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007