Appeal No. 2006-1587
Application No. 10/020,768
OPINION
For the reasons set forth in the Answer and below, we
sustain each of these rejections.
Comment [s3]: Underline and bold
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Heidweiller the sub-title in order to be consistent.
Claims 1 through 8, 11, 13 through 18 and 21 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Heidweiller.
Heidweiller discloses a reinforcing fiber web comprising a
base web including glass fibers and organic fibers with the
ratio by weight between the glass fibers and the organic fibers
ranging from 10:1 to 1:1 (col. 1, lines 60-67). According to
the Examiner, this translates to 50-100% glass fibers and 10-50%
organic fibers (Answer, page 3).1 Heidweiller also teaches the
use of a polymeric binder in an amount of “preferably 5-50
percent by weight, calculated on the total weight of the web”
(col. 2, lines 69-70). The binder may be polyvinyl alcohol
(col. 2, line 55). While Heidweiller does not specifically
state that a secondary binder is added, the Examiner states that
“[t]he polyvinyl alcohol binder of Heidweiller is equated to the
Applicant’s ‘polyvinyl alcohol’ and ‘secondary binder’” (Answer,
paragraph bridging pages 3 and 4). Appellant has not disputed
this statement.
In addition, Heidweiller teaches that polyethylene glycol
terephthalate fibers can be used as the organic fibers (Example
II, col. 4, lines 1-4). Heidweiller does not explicitly teach
the diameter of the organic fibers. However, the Examiner
1 Our calculations reflect a glass fiber content of 50-91% and an organic
fiber content of 9-50%.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007