Appeal No. 2006-1153
Application No. 10/123,269
In support of his opposing viewpoint, the appellant presents
the following argument on page 5 of the brief:
Applicants [sic] respectfully disagree with the Examiner’s
characterization that the fabric 47 (or the fabric 73 show
in Figure 4) is an adhesive web binder. Merely because the
fabric 47 contains “potentially adhesive fibers”, does not
make it an adhesive web binder as specifically recited in
claim 1 of the present application.
This argument is not well taken. Patentee’s fabric 47 is
expressly described as “consisting of potentially adhesive
fibers” (column 10, line 11) and the potentially adhesive fibers
are expressly disclosed as being “activated” by heat (e.g., see
lines 27-45 in column 10). Moreover, Francis explicitly teaches
that the heat activation “may be carried to the point where such
potentially adhesive fibers loose their fibrous structure, and
flow to form a continuous film of binding substance” (column 7,
lines 56-59). Based on these prior art disclosures, we find, as
did the examiner, that patentee’s “fabric 47 consisting of
potentially adhesive fibers” (column 10, lines 10-11) fully
satisfies the “adhesive web binder” limitation of independent
claim 1 (as well as independent claim 13).
Indeed, based on the record before us, this fabric
of potentially adhesive fibers taught by Francis is
indistinguishable from the adhesive web binder described
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007