Appeal 2006-2290
Application 10/278,190
Appellant argues the claims in each ground of rejection as a group
(Brief. in entirety). We decide this appeal on the basis of independent claim
9, on which the other appealed claims directly or ultimately depend, as
explained below. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004).
The threshold issue is whether the Examiner has carried the burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness under § 103(a) of claim 9
over the combined teachings of Siess and Reader, the basic combination in
each of the grounds of rejection.
The Examiner finds Siess would have disclosed a method for
protecting the exposed surface of a face of a person from harmful airborne
particles by providing a face mask having one or more electrostatically-
charged polymer layers by “placing the bottom surface of said
electrostatically charged sheet on” the face, citing column 11, lines 44-49,
and Figs. 8 and 9 (Answer 3). The Examiner determines Siess does not
disclose an absorbent layer in contact with the top surface of the
electrostatically charged sheet (Answer 4). The Examiner finds Reader
would have disclosed a face mask having an absorbent layer, such as a
polymer layer, in contact with the top surface of an electrostatically charged
sheet which is an electret meltblown layer, citing column 2, lines. 15-30,
column 3, lines. 1-45, and column 4, lines 25 and 49-55 (id.). The Examiner
contends it would have been obvious to modify the method of Siess to
include providing an absorbent layer, such as a polymer layer, in contact
with an electrostatically charged layer of the mask of Siess for improved
filtration efficiency, breathability, and comfort as shown by Reader, citing
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013