Appeal 2006-2290
Application 10/278,190
Upon comparison, it is apparent that the claimed method encompassed
by claim 9 would have been rendered prima facie obvious by Siess alone if
the reference in fact disclosed to one of ordinary skill in this art a mask
consisting of electrostatically charged polymer fiber absorbent layers as the
only layers. Indeed, Siess provides clear direction to one of ordinary skill to
construct the requisite layers from commercially available polymer fiber
absorbent media in the form of a mat in which the fibers can carry an
electrostatic charge. We agree with Appellant that these layers would be
present as the top, outer or front layers to present the repelling charge to the
charged airborne particles.
Such a two layer mask would necessarily place the electrostatically
charged absorbent media against the face of the wearer as required by claim
9. However, Siess contains no express teaching of this construction. Thus,
as Appellant points out, the Examiner must establish that Siess’ masks are so
constructed and worn.
The Examiner in stating the ground of rejection of claim 9 and in
response to Appellant’s arguments in the Brief, merely states that Siess
shows the mask in direct contact with the face of the wearer. In response to
Appellant’s arguments in the Brief, the Examiner states that “Reader was not
used to teach placement against the face of the wearer as Siess shows this,”
and concludes the similarity between the masks of Siess and Reader with
respect to being multilayered and being made of the same kinds of materials
shows the two layer mask of Siess is not uncomfortable against the face of
the wearer as discomfort in this respect is not disclosed in either reference.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013