Appeal 2006-2290
Application 10/278,190
Examiner’s alterations would not “increase the comfort of wearing the
mask” because the outer layer does not contact the skin, and there is no
“evidence that changing the outer layer to an absorbent would improve
breathability” or filtration (id. 2). Appellant submits Siess’ system avoids
the mask filtering contaminates by repelling the contaminants.
The plain language of independent claim 9 specifies any method of
protecting in any manner and to any extent, any manner of exposed surface
from any undesired result to which that surface is exposed, by placing the
bottom surface of any manner of sheet that is electrostatically charged to any
extent, in contact to any extent with the surface to be protected, wherein the
top surface of the electrostatically charged sheet is in contact to any extent
with the bottom surface of any manner of absorbent layer.
There is no limitation on the exposed surface or the result to be
prevented by the protection to be provided. Appellant describes, for
example, the desire in the laboratory arts to protect the surface of a
workbench from solvents which can damage the surface as well as flow
therefrom onto any other surface (Specification 1:10-25). There is also no
limitation on any additional sheet or sheets in contact with the top surface of
the absorbent layer. Appellant describes a layer covering the absorbent layer
(Specification 2:18-19 and 28-30, 4:18-22, and Fig. 2). The claim further
does not require the electrostatically charged sheet to remain so for any
particular period of time after placed in contact with the exposed surface.
See Specification 3-4. Cf. Exxon Chem. Pats., Inc. v. Lubrizol Corp., 64
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013