Appeal No. 2006-1038
Application No. 10/138,994
Figures 5 and 6) in the form of a polyurethane froth foam
adhesive with non-Newtonian thickener of the type and for the
reasons taught by Holeschovsky. In this way, Irwin's tufted
carpet would have been provided with an adhesive evinced by
Holeschovsky to be suitable and even advantageous as a back
coating for tufted carpets. It is the examiner's additional
position that the aforementioned provision would have necessarily
and inherently resulted in the fibers of Irwin's fabric or
backing being at least partially penetrated and/or embedded by
the urethane froth as required by appealed claim 1. This
additional position is supported by Irwin (e.g., see lines 47-50
in column 6 wherein patentee teaches that, "[i]f spun fibers are
used in the weft direction, such fibers will increase adhesion
between backing layer 15 and any adhesive . . . that is used to
back coat the carpet") as well as Holeschovsky (e.g., again see
lines 7-10 in column 5 wherein patentee teaches that "[t]he low
viscosity under these [application] conditions allows the
reactive polyurethane to thoroughly penetrate exposed tufts and
primary backing, ensuring adequate tuft bind").
The appellant argues that "combining the Irwin reference
with the Holeschovsky . . . reference does not result in the
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007