Appeal 2006-2455
Application 10/142,533
Upon careful review of the respective positions advanced by the
Appellants and the Examiner, we affirm the rejection of claims 2, 3, and
6-10 for the reasons expressed in the Answer and add the following.2
The Examiner has found that Steuber discloses an unbonded
consolidated loose batt fabric comprising fibers having a ribbon shaped
cross section. (Answer 3). The Examiner has also found that Steuber
discloses fibrous elements having a surface area greater than 2 m2/gm.
(Answer 3).3 Steuber provides two methods for compacting the fibrous
fabric. Specifically, Steuber describes contact-bonded sheets which are
produced by light or moderate pressure consolidation of the fibrous fabric.
Steuber states that this compaction process produces usefully strong sheets
from a strengthless batt. (Col. 7, ll. 42-44) Steuber distinguishes the
contact-bonded sheets from heat-fused sheets which are described as
cohesively-bonded sheets. (Col. 7, ll. 51-54). Appellants (Br. 3)
acknowledge that the "contact-bonded" sheets are equivalent to the
"consolidated batts" of the present claims. The Examiner cites the Dempsey
reference for teaching the method of needle-punching the loose batt.
Dempsey specifically cites to the Steuber reference as a starting point for the
2 Appellants have not presented separate arguments for the claims on appeal.
Therefore, we select claim 2 as representative of the appealed claims and
will limit our discussion thereto.
3 With regard to claim 2, the Examiner has not provided a discussion of the
thickness/basis weight ratio of the disclosed fibrous fabric. We note that
Appellants have not asserted that the Steuber reference does not disclose a
fibrous fabric which meets the thickness/basis weight ratio of claim 2. (See
Briefs generally).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007