Appeal No. 2006-2004
Application 10/022,823
the fibers can be natural and synthetic fibers such as cellulosic fibers, especially paper (e.g., col.
1, l. 53, to col. 2, l. 10). Geer would have disclosed anionic or amphoteric polymers which are
reactive with paper pulp fibers, wherein a cationic adjunct or co-additive is usually necessary to
retain the anionic polymers on the anionic fiber surfaces and can be used to retain the amphoteric
polymers on such surfaces, and provide paper with improved dry strength and temporary wet
strength (e.g., page 9, l. 6, to page 10, l. 12).
We find that, as the examiner contends, one of ordinary skill in this art would have
recognized from the teachings of Evani and of Geer that the binder and polymers disclosed
therein would bind the cellulosic material of any fibers, increasing the strength of the treated
nonwoven web or paper. However, we determine that this fact alone is not sufficient motivation
to combine the teachings of each of these references with Schrell. As appellants argue, the
examiner ignores the fact that the modified fibers containing occluded polyvinylamine of Schrell
are used for textiles, including woven textiles, and thus the examiner has not explained on this
record why one of ordinary skill in this art would have treated the modified fibers of Schrell with
the binders and polymers of Evani and Geer. Indeed, we find no teaching in the references as
combined which would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in this art that the modified fibers
of Schrell should be further bonded together when formed into textile materials to increase the
strength of the textile materials by using additional agents employed with other cellulosic
materials to obtain different products. “The mere fact that the prior art may be modified in the
manner suggested by the Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the prior art
suggested the desirability of the modification.” In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d
1780, 1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Further, the examiner has not established that if one of ordinary skill in the art would
have treated the modified fibers containing occluded polyvinylamine of Schrell with the binders
and polymers of Evani and Geer, it would reasonably appear that the binders and polymers
would bond the occluded polyvinylamines to the textile fibers containing the same as required by
claim 16. See, e.g., In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255-56, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977).
Thus, on this record, we determine that the examiner has not established a prima facie
case of obviousness of the claimed invention encompassed by claim 16 over the combined
teachings of Schrell with Evani and with Greer, and we further find no teaching in Takahashi
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007