Appeal No. 2006-1587
Application No. 10/020,768
microns as suggested by Helwig [‘843] in the invention of
Heidweiller motivated by the expectation of successfully
practicing the invention of Heidweiller” (Answer, page 8).
Regarding claim 23, the Examiner acknowledges that the
combination of Heidweiller and Helwig ‘843 “discloses the
claimed invention except for that the polyvinyl alcohol fiber
has a diameter of between about 6 to 11 microns as required by
claim 23 and the base web has about 10 to less than 50% by
weight of glass fibers as required by claim 22” (id.). The
Examiner states “that the diameter of the polyvinyl alcohol
fiber and the weight percentage of glass fibers are result
effective variables” (id.). According to the Examiner, “[i]t
would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art
at the time the invention was made to create a polyvinyl alcohol
fiber with a diameter of between 6 and 11 microns as required by
claim 23 and the base web has [sic, having] 10 to less than 50%
by weight of glass fibers as required by claim 22, since it has
been held that discovering an optimum value of a result
effective variable involves only routine skill in the art”
(id.).
Regarding claim 19, Appellant once more highlights the
glass fiber content, polyethylene terephthalate fiber content
and diameter as the distinguishing characteristics of the
claimed invention (Brief, page 13). Appellant further argues
that Helwig ‘843 “is silent as to the diameter of any
polyethylene terephthalate fibers and, accordingly, does nothing
to address this shortcoming of the primary reference to
Heidweiller” (Brief, page 14). Regarding claims 22 and 23,
-12-
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007