Appeal 2006-2931
Application 10/447,009
properties based solely on the ethylene content (Br. 6). Appellants further
contend that the high wet to dry tensile strength ratio of nonwoven webs
bonded with the polymers disclosed by Mudge were not achieved because
the method employed by Mudge to produce the polymers would not result in
ethylene crystalline segments (Br. 6).
The first issue before us is whether Appellants have shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) or in the
alternative under 35 U.S.C. §103(a). The issue turns on whether the
Examiner has established a reasonable belief that the property or
characteristic recited in the claims would have been inherent to the product
or process, and whether the Appellants have adequately rebutted the
Examiner's position by showing that the characteristic or property is not
possessed in the cited reference. Specifically, the issue is whether the
Examiner has shown that the nonwoven product of Mudge comprising a
nonwoven web of fibers bonded together with an emulsion polymerized
polymer comprising vinyl acetate, ethylene, and a polymerized cross-linking
units of a monomer would be reasonably expected to inherently possess
“polymerized units of crystalline ethylene segments” and the “polymer
having a crystalline melting point ranging from 35 to 90°C as measured by
differential scanning calorimetry at a heat rate of 20°C per minute”
properties, and, if so, whether Appellants have established that the product
of Mudge does not possess the recited characteristics.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following facts are relevant to the issues I and II:
Appellants invented a nonwoven product comprising the nonwoven
web of fibers bonded together with a sufficient amount of binder. The
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013