Appeal No. 2006-1587
Application No. 10/020,768
that “these teachings [of Helwig ‘879 and Helwig ‘001] very
clearly diverge from the claimed invention” (id.). Further,
Appellant argues that “[t]he secondary reference [i.e., Helwig
‘001] provides no teaching or suggestion whatsoever to indicate
to one skilled in the art that such a secondary binder is
appropriate for use where the reinforcement fibers include less
than 50% glass and from about 50 to about 90% by weight of
polyethylene terephthalate fibers as set forth in claim 1 from
which claim 12 depend[s]” (id.).
We do not read Helwig ‘001 as disclosing a mat of only 100%
glass fibers. Helwig ‘001 allows for a mat containing glass
textile fibers, polymeric binder fibers . . . and optionally
poly(vinyl alcohol) fibers (col. 1, lines 59-60). Included
among the choices for polymeric binder powder is a bicomponent
binder fiber “which has a polyester core and a polyolefin
sheath” (col. 3, lines 63-65). Helwig ‘001 also suggests a
glass fiber content between 50 to 90% and a binder fiber content
of 10-50% (col. 2, lines 31-34). Therefore, contrary to
Appellant’s argument, Helwig ‘001 is not limited to a mat of
only 100% glass fibers. Regardless, it is clear that Helwig
‘001 evinces that vinyl acetate ethylene copolymer was known in
the prior art and was known to be used as a binder for non-woven
Comment [s10]: Inserted extra space
fiber mats. It follows that Helwig ‘001 would have suggested (should be two spaces after the period.
the use of a vinyl acetate ethylene copolymer as a binder even
if it only taught a mat of 100% glass fibers. Accordingly, we
affirm this rejection.
-19-
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007