Appeal No. 2006-1153
Application No. 10/123,269
As previously explained, patentee’s “fabric 47 consisting
of potentially adhesive fibers” (column 10, lines 10-11) is
indistinguishable from the “adhesive web binder” of independent
claim 1 (as well as independent claim 13). Moreover, the
potentially adhesive fibers of Francis, like the adhesive web
binder claimed by appellant, are heated to a temperature
sufficient to at least partially melt the fibers to thereby
provide the desired adhesive as fully explained above and in the
answer. In this way, at least some of the unbonded filaments or
fibers of patentee’s first bat 44 are necessarily and inherently
bonded to at least some of the unbonded filaments or fibers of
the second bat as required by the independent claims on appeal.
Viewed from this perspective, the appellant’s statement that
“[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” (reply brief, page 2) is equally applicable to
the product made by the hereclaimed method wherein the two layers
are separated from each other by the adhesive web binder. Again,
this is because patentee’s fabric 47 consisting of potentially
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007