Appeal 2006-2400
Application 10/051,814
product on a cationic material, we concur with the Examiner that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to employ the polymer binder
of the type discussed in Noda as the binder for forming the nonwoven
product of the type discussed in Pregozen, motivated a reasonable
expectation of successfully obtaining a nonwoven product having an
improved wet strength and an optimum anionic surface charge, such as that
claimed. In re Dow Chem. Co., 837 F.2d 469, 473, 5 USPQ2d 1529, 1531
(Fed. Cir. 1988)
The Appellants argue that Pregozen does not teach or suggest using its
nonwoven substrate to deliver a cationic functional agent (Br. 7). In
particular, the Appellants take the position that Pregozen teaches using
“cationic biocides as a preservative for the substrate rather than as any
functional additive to be delivered.” Id. The Appellants’ position is not well
taken.
As indicated supra, Pregozen teaches that its moistened wipe is
prepared by applying various aqueous compositions containing, inter alia,
an active agent such as a cationic biocide in the claimed amount to the
flexible absorbent nonwoven substrate. See also Pregozen, column 5, lines
13-42. Pregozen specifically teaches that the resulting wet wipe is used to
deliver various active agents including “a cationic biocide to animate or
inonius surfaces . . . .” See Pregozen, column 7, lines 47-48 and columns
43-50.
The Appellants separately argue the limitation recited in claim 25.
Specifically, the Appellants argue that Pregozen teaches away from
employing a monomeric cationic functional agent, such as benzalkonium
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007