Appeal 2006-2969
Application 10/394,075
surface treatments would inherently increase the water release rate near
dryness” (Br. 9). Appellants contend Trask’s chromium complex and Lack’s
urea resin would attract water and Keller’s binder prevents free access of
water to the exposed hydrophobic particles and adjacent fiber surfaces (id.).
Appellants contend the purpose of each reference is to totally prevent water
from penetrating the fibers, while the claimed invention does not impede
water penetration in providing differential resistance between the particle
treated and non-treated fiber surfaces (id. 9-10).
The Examiner responds that, in Trask, the particle is in direct contact
with the fiber surface through the chromium complex compound because
this compound becomes part of the fiber and part of the particle, the latter
through van der Waals forces, and thus, is not a separate entity (Answer 16).
The Examiner contends that in the phrase “adhering directly to the surface”
in claim 1, the term “adhere” “is defined as ‘To stick fast by or as if by
suction or glue,’” and in the phrase “located directly on” in claim 25, the
term “on” “is defined as ‘Used to indicate position above and supported by
or in contact with’” (Answer 16-17; original emphasis omitted). The
Examiner thus contends Appellants never claim “that the particles are
necessarily in contact with the fibers” and the claims “allow for the existence
of a binder (glue) between the particles and the fibers,” arguing that “without
a binder or van der Waals forces the particles and fibers would not adhere
together” (id. 17). The Examiner contends “[t]he current claims do not
exclude the presence of a compound from ‘the surface’” which is claimed as
“consisting essentially of (restricted open claim language) a surface of a
fiber or yarn” (id.). In this respect, the Examiner contends the Specification
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013