Appeal No. 2006-1153
Application No. 10/123,269
in the subject specification. This is because, according to the
specification, the appellant’s adhesive web binder, like fabric
47 of Francis, is made of thermoplastic polymers which may be in
the form of a rolled product (e.g., see lines 1-17 on
specification page 6 in comparison with lines 28-54 in column
5 as well as fabric roller 45 shown in figure 2 of Francis).
The appellant further argues that Francis does not satisfy
the claim 1 limitation “providing an adhesive to bind at least
some of the unbonded filaments of the first layer of glass
filaments to at least some of the unbonded filaments of the
second layer of glass filaments.” In this regard, the appellant
does not disagree with the proposition that, in the method of
Francis, “a first bat [i.e., bat 44] is bonded to one side of the
textile fabric [i.e., fabric 47], and a second bat [i.e., the
unnumbered bat formed in chamber 48] is bonded to a second side
of the textile fabric” (reply brief, page 2). Nevertheless, the
appellant contends that patentee’s method does not satisfy the
aforequoted claim limitation because “[t]he two layers of web or
bat in the product made by the method described in Francis . . .
are separated from each other by the textile fabric” (id.).
Like the examiner, we are unpersuaded by this contention.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007