Appeal No. 2006-1701
Application No. 10/334,513
Appellants contend, however, that Dugan does not describe the
claimed invention because the fabric of Dugan is not disclosed as
being for use in papermaking and papermaking processes, Examples
1-8 of Dugan are comparative examples that are not the patentee’s
invention, and Dugan does not describe that the comparative
examples have reduced air permeability. We agree with the
examiner that these arguments are not persuasive.
The claimed recitation of intended use, “for use in
papermaking and papermaking related processes,” does not serve to
structurally distinguish the claimed fabric from the comparative
fabrics of Dugan. As pointed out by the examiner, the present
specification fails to describe any physical characteristics of
fabrics within the scope of the appealed claims that are not
possessed by the comparative fabrics of Dugan. Significantly,
appellants have not established on this record that the
comparative fabrics described by Dugan cannot be used in the
broadly claimed class of “papermaking related processes.”
Appellants’ argument that Dugan is directed to using fibers
having a hydrophilic surface modification, or coating, is also
without merit. It is not necessary for a finding of anticipation
under Section 102 that the description of the claimed invention
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007