Appeal 2006-2949
Application 10/012,768
does not patentably distinguish over the fabrics resulting from the combined
teachings of the references (id. 5,6).
Appellants submit that Adam would not have taught or suggested the
use of recycled synthetic fibers and fiber-like materials in hydraulically
entangled nonwoven fabrics, and that neither Adam nor Milding would have
taught using at least one thread element of synthetic material having at least
one irregular distortion generated according to the process specified by
claim 1, contending out that Adam would not have taught recycling fibers
obtained by mechanically shredding waste fibers (Br. 10-11). Appellants
further contend that the recycled fibers having at least one irregular
distortion prepared by the specific process result in fabrics having “greater
utility than 100 percent virgin fibers . . . due to their unique shape and
greater surface area” (Br. 11). In this respect, Appellants argue that the
mechanical shredding of Milding results in “incomplete fiberization of
bonded nonwoven webs” and “undesirable bits of fabric or ‘flocks,’” and
“would likely melt the thermoplastic material . . . into unusable clumps of
polymer” (Br. 12).
We find that Adam would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in
this art that hydraulically entangled nonwoven fabrics can be prepared from,
among others, fibrous material which is pulp fibers that can be, among
others, recycled fibers (col. 3, ll. 19-22). We further find that Milding would
have acknowledged that it was known in the art to prepare hydraulically
entangled nonwoven fabrics from staple thermoplastic fibers, pulp fibers and
mixtures thereof for use as drying and disposable materials for industry and
health-care, and that mixed synthetic and natural fiber nonwoven and textile
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007