Appeal No. 2006-0806
Application 09/954,807
because (1) each fiber crossover point at which the fibers are bonded is a “continuous
bonded area[]”, (2) each fiber crossover point at which the fibers are not bonded is a
“discreet unbonded area[]”, (3) even the areas along all of the fibers of the web that
are not at fiber crossover points (both bonded and unbonded fiber crossover points)
are “discreet unbonded areas” and (4) the bonded fiber crossover points “defin[e]” the
“discrete unbonded areas” of the web . . . since the ‘discrete unbonded areas” are all
the “areas” of the web other than the bonded fiber crossover points (equivalently, the
continuous bonded areas”). [Answer, page 10.]
In reply, appellants submit that “[t]wo bond points along an unbonded line are not
equivalent to a “continuous bonded area encircling or surrounding” an unbonded area (reply
brief, page 2).
We agree with appellants. We note that the subject claim language specifies that “the
nonwoven web is bonded with a pattern” and the definition in the specification specifies “a
fabric pattern.” Thus, it is the nonwoven web in which the bonded areas are “continuous,” and
not a crossover “point” area on a single fiber. Indeed, we find that Midkiff would have disclosed
that the primary and secondary “air” heat treatments result in random bonding of “almost every
crossover point,” which disclosure, as explained by the examiner, would not reasonably appear
to result in the “pattern” required by the subject claim language.
Accordingly, the examiner has not established a prima facie case of anticipation within
the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and of obviousness within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),
and therefore, we reverse the grounds of rejection.
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
Remand
We remand the application to the examiner for consideration of issues raised by the
record. 37 CFR § 41.50(a)(1) (2005); Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1211
(8th ed., Rev. 3, August 2005).
Appellants acknowledge in the background of the specification that they are aware of a
commercial product which, on this record, appears to differ from the claimed protective material
encompassed by the appealed claims in that the “nonwoven fabric was not electret treated” (page
3, ll. 9-22). We find no submission of information with respect to this acknowledged prior art on
the record. Cf. In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 570-71, 571 n.5, 184 USPQ 607, 611, 611 n.4
(CCPA 1975) (“We see no reason why appellants’ representations in their application should not
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007