Appeal 2007-0291
Application 09/976,412
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Claims 5-14, 19-31, 37, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Paley, Langley, and Morin in view of Dean
(Answer 3).
Claims 5-14 and 19-31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Paley and Rockwell in view of Dean (Answer 6). Claims
37-38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Paley,
Rockwell, and Dean further in view of Morin (Answer 8).
Appellants contend that Paley is directed to a wiper for reducing
particulate contamination of a cleanroom environment where the wiper has a
continuous fused border or edge to capture or retain all loose fibers from the
cut edges of the wiper fabric (Br. 8). Appellants further contend that Paley
teaches away from the claimed construction by disclosing that “localized
melting of the segments is insufficient” to prevent the segments from release
when subjected to agitation common in the use of the wiper (Br. 9).
Appellants contend that Langley fails to teach the production of
cleanroom wipers and polyester yarns that are substantially free of inorganic
ionic additives (Br. 11).
Appellants contend that Dean teaches the use of titanium metal
catalysts in the production of polyester while Appellants disclose that
polyester fiber is used that is substantially free of titanium dioxide (Br. 12-
13).
Appellants contend that Rockwell is non-analogous art, directed to
towels for use in a public restroom, and does not recognize the problem
solved by Appellants (Br. 18-19).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013