Appeal 2007-0098
Application 10/169,909
Claims 2 through 7 and 14 through 19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Schikowski, Quantrille,
Radwanski, Haid, Roussin-Moynier, and optionally Suskind
As acknowledged by the Appellant (Br. 4),
[Schikowski] discloses a method of producing a material by dry
forming in which a multilayered non-woven fabric is produced
by successfully air-laying bonding fibers, then cellulose fibers
and again bonding fibers. . . the fabric is [then] passed thorough
a pair of rollers, which are preferably heated, and then
conveyed to a flow-through oven in which the binding fibers
are activated.2
The Appellant has also acknowledged that it is known that “[t]his type of
production [i.e., the air-laying method taught by Schikowski] has the
advantage of higher achievable speed compared to the formation of card
non-woven fabric” (Spec. 1). Further, the Appellant has acknowledged that
calendaring, after air-laying, the fibers is known to strengthen the
multilayered non-woven fabric (Spec. 1). Indeed, Schikowski, at page 4,
states that:
For stabilizing the very thin outer layers on the produced
web, the web together with the wire is passed through a pair of
rollers 12, 14, which are preferably heated for achieving a sligt
[sic, slight] compaction of the product, whereby it is
consolidated sufficiently for a following conveying to a flow-
through oven 16, in which the binding fibres [sic, fibers] are
activated.
From the oven 16 the web, now stabilized, is moved
through a calandar [sic, calendar] unit 18, the rollers of which
2 There is no dispute that the claimed bottom and top layers comprising “thermally
activatable staple fibers” encompass the bottom and top bonding fiber layers taught by
Schilkowski. Compare the Answer in its entirety with the Brief and the Reply Brief in
their entirety.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013