Appeal 2006-2144
Application 10/001,158
We have carefully considered the claims, Specification and prior art
references, including the arguments advanced by the Appellants and the
Examiner in support of their respective positions. This review has led us to
conclude that the Examiner’s § 103 rejection set forth in the Answer1 is not
well founded. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s decision
rejecting the claims on appeal for the reasons set forth in the Brief2. We add
the following primarily for emphasis.
As recognized by the Examiner (Answer 3),
McAtee[‘s disposable cleansing implement] differs from the
claimed invention because McAtee does not disclose adding [its
lathering] surfactant to the polymer melt before the fibers are
extruded but instead applies the surfactant to the fibers after the
nonwoven is formed.
Indeed, McAtee mentions that a lathering surfactant, conditioning agents and
any optional ingredients can be added on to or impregnated into a substrate
by “spraying, printing, splashing, dipping, or coating.” See, e.g., col. 50, ll.
59-64.
To remedy this deficiency, the Examiner relies on the disclosure of
Hansenoehrl. See the Answer 3-4. Although Hansenoehrl teaches or
suggests mixing a surfactant for imparting hydrophobic or hydrophilic
properties to a substrate with a polymeric material before forming fibers for
the substrate, it does not teach or suggest blending and extruding a lathering
surfactant and a polymeric melt together to form fibers. See pages 34 and
1 We refer to the Supplemental Answer mailed on June 20, 2005 as the
Answer.
2 We refer to the Brief filed on July 27, 2004 as the Brief.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007