Appeal 2006-2290
Application 10/278,190
we reverse the ground of rejection of claim 9 and the grounds of rejection of
the other appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The Primary Examiner’s decision is reversed.
Remand
We remand the application to the Examiner for consideration and
explanation of the issues raised by the record. 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1)
(2006); Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1211 (8th ed.,
Rev. 5, August 2006).
Upon further prosecution of pending claims after the disposition of
this appeal, the Examiner should consider the commercially available
materials FiltreteTM Air Filter Media or “Technostat” used in Siess’ masks to
determine whether one of ordinary skill in this art would have constructed
the masks of only two layers, one to be in contact with the face of the
wearer. Indeed, we found above that Reader would have disclosed to this
person a two layer mask in which an electret meltblown layer is in contact
with the face of the wearer.
The Examiner should consider whether the two layer masks of Reader
with an electret meltblown layer in contact with the face of the wearer
applies to the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and/or 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). In this respect, the Examiner should consider whether one of
ordinary skill in this art would have been led by Reader to insert a paper,
foam, or other kind of layer between the top SMS laminate and the bottom
electret melt blown layer.
The Examiner should consider whether US 3,342,613, to Schelhorn,
of record in parent Application 10/278,190, applies to the appealed claims
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013