Appeal No. 2006-0778
Application No. 10/266,917
fibers. In fact, appellants themselves describe bonding their
spunlaced nonwoven to a backing (specification, p. 2, ll. 26-31;
p. 4, ll. 12-22; p. 6, l. 29 to p. 7, l. 17). Further, the fact
that dependent claims are directed to bonding the spunlaced
fabric to a backing is strong evidence that claim 1 is intended
to encompass, rather than exclude, such bonding. Therefore, the
fact that Goulat describes bonding to a backing does not
persuade me that there is no anticipation.
Second, as stated by appellants “Goulat specifically states
that his nonwoven web 30 used in the female component 22 refers
to ‘fabrics made of fibers held together by interlocking or
bonding.” (Brief, p. 4 citing Goulat, col. 8, ll. 55-56,
emphasis added). While Appellants are correct that Figure 4A of
Goulait depicts the interfiber bonding embodiment, Goulait also
discloses embodiments in which there is no interbonding between
fibers. Goulat specifically discloses that the female component
22 "could be made by bonding an unbonded layer of loose fibers
to a backing material, in which case there may be no interfiber
bonds." (Goulat, col. 12, ll. 46-49, emphasis added). Goulat
further discusses this loose fiber embodiment in column 22,
lines 42-46 and then further discloses that, "[i]n other
alternative embodiments, rather than being in the form of a
layer of loose fibers, the first material 118 could be in the
form of a web of entangled fibers or a web of bonded fibers.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007