Appeal 2006-2969
Application 10/394,075
that is, polytetrafluoroethylene,] particles . . . without any additional
additives” (Br. 6-7). Appellants contend the micrographs show “the
invention” with “the particles . . . clearly seen attached directly to the fibers
in clusters only one or two particles thick,” and depict a “particle” on a
“surface” (id. 7). Appellants contend the applied references do not show
“particles . . . either adhering directly to the surface of the textile material or
located directly on the hydrophobic surface of the fabric” and thus, do not
anticipate the claimed invention (id.).
In this respect, Appellants contend Trask “discloses a chromium
complex of a long-chain fluorochemical to couple [PTFE] particles to
organic fibers,” and Lack “discloses that urea resin reacts with the hydroxyl
groups on the fibers and forms crosslinks with the PTFE particles to adhere
them to the fiber (Br. 7-8, citing Trask col. 2, ll. 42-57, and Lack col. 1,
ll. 63-67, and col. 3, ll. 37-42). Appellants contend Keller “discloses PTFE
particles in a film-forming binder applied to a surface to form a solid film”
(id. 8, citing Keller col. 2, ll. 37-47, and col. 3, ll. 29-31). Appellants
contend, with respect to each reference, the PTFE particles do not “contact
the surface directly” (id.). Appellants contend the linking components of the
references, that is, Trask’s chromium complex, Lack’s urea resin-hydroxyl
crosslinks, and Keller’s film forming binder, do not become “a part of the
surface such that the PTFE particle is then in direct contact” because of the
claim limitation “said surface consisting essentially of a surface of a fiber or
a yarn” (id.).
Appellants further contend the claimed and prior art surface
treatments are not identical and thus, “there is no reason to believe these
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013