Appeal No. 2006-1587
Application No. 10/020,768
Heidweiller reference, the Examiner is of the position that ”the
combined total of polyvinyl alcohol and secondary binder in the
web, the amount of PET fibers, the amount of glass fibers and
the diameter of the PET fiber 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] web [having] glass fibers in
the amount of 10 to less than 50% by weight, the polyethylene
terephthalate fibers [having] a diameter of from about 6 to 12
microns and are present in the amount of 50-90% by weight [as]
required by claim 1, since it has been held that discovering an
optimum value of a result effective variable involves only
routine skill in the art” (id.).
Appellant argues that Helwig ‘879 “fails to provide any
specific ratio between” the combination of glass fibers and
synthetic fibers (Brief, page 16). Appellant also states that
Helwig ‘879 “is consistent with the longstanding industry
standard of 50% or more glass fibers in a web as established in
Heidweiller” (id.). In support of this statement, Appellant
argues that 4 of the 5 examples in Helwig ‘879 include 100%
glass fiber reinforcement while only Example 5 involves a
mixture with 80% glass fiber (Brief, paragraph bridging pages 16
and 17). Appellant concludes that Helwig ‘879 “teaches away
from the 10 to less than 50% by weight glass fibers explicitly
recited . . . in claim 1” (id.). In addition, Appellant argues
that the calculated diameter for Helwig ‘879’s polyethylene
terephthalate fiber of 12.6 microns “is greater than the about 6
-16-
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007