Appeal No. 2007-0281
Application No. 10/444,073
2. OBVIOUSNESS
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-14, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious in view of Heagle,2 Baumgardner,3 an “Internet article,”4 and
“admissions of the Instant Specification on pages 4-7.” (Answer 5.) The
examiner relies on Heagle for disclosing “a web of acrylic and/or
acrylonitrile fibers or fibrils and non-fibrillated, sheath and matrix fibers of
any low-melting synthetic polymer . . . in the form of a non-woven web that
is mixed also with glass fibers and cellulose fibers.” (Id.)
The Examiner relies on Baumgardner for teaching “a filter comprising
specific proportions and diameters of cellulose fiber, glass fiber and
synthetic staple fibers and synthetic binder fibers . . . tailored to effectively
remove erythrocytes from whole blood.” (Id. at 6.) The Examiner also
characterizes both Heagle and Baumgardner as suggesting adjusting various
properties of their filters to remove larger or smaller components from
blood. (Id. at 6-7.)
The Examiner concludes that it “would have been obvious to have
altered the proportion of the different types of fibers of Heagle and fiber
diameters, as suggested by Baumgardner et al[.], so as to adapt the filter to
removing erythrocytes . . . since erythrocytes (red blood cells) interfere with
diagnosis.” (Answer 8.) The Examiner relies on the cited Internet article and
2 Heagle et al., U.S. Patent 5,454,946, issued Oct. 3, 1995.
3 Baumgardner et al., U.S. Patent 5,186,843, issued Feb. 16, 1993.
4 The Examiner cites the Internet article as follows: “Internet article: ‘CFF
FIBRILLATED FIBERS-SPECIALTY PAPERS d3;[’] Engineered Fibers
Technology, Brochure from Efibers Tec of Shelton, CT, undated,
downloaded 12-2005.” (Answer 4.) The article bears the Internet address
“www.eftfibers.com/d3.htm.”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013