Appeal No. 2006-0827
Application 10/025,214
4, principal brief, first paragraph). Appellants also submit that
the wrapper of Putzier has all the binder material concentrated
along its seam.
We are not persuaded by appellants’ argument. Rather, we agree
with the examiner that Putzier’s disclosure of “a binder stabilizing
the wrapper” (column 2, line 48) provides a teaching, or at least a
suggestion, to one of ordinary skill in the art that the binder is
mixed throughout the wrapper. Also, the examiner accurately points
out that “there is nothing in the entire disclosure of Putzier to
support the contention that the binder is only applied at the seam
... Putzier repeatedly states that the binder stabilizes the
wrapper, not the seam where the wrapper is overlapped on itself”
(paragraph bridging pages 6 and 7 of answer). Moreover, we find
that it has been conventional in the art to stabilize a fibrous
structure by incorporating a binder throughout, as evidenced by
GB ‘648.
Appellants also maintain that Putzier does not teach or suggest
that the absorbent wrap provides at least 20% of the total absorbent
capacity of the structure, as presently claimed. Appellants contend
that “the wrapper disclosed in Putzier constitutes, at most, 8% wt.
Of the absorbent structure” (page 5 of principal brief, penultimate
paragraph). However, the portion of Putzier cited by appellants
specifically states that “[e]specially preferred are non-woven
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007