Appeal 2007- 0629
Application 10/419,765
The heated nip rolls 54 and 56 may be spaced apart so that the mat 30 is
subjected to little or no compression when passing between the heated nip
rolls 54 and 56 or the mat may be compressed between about 25-50% of its
final thickness, the compression serving to bring more of the mat fibers into
contact with the heated surface of the rolls resulting in more coextensive and
uniform thin melt layers (Vair, col. 6, ll. 27-44).
Appellants apply heat and pressure to form a gradient density padding
material (Specification ¶ 31). Appellants disclose that the air flow resistance
is dependent upon the amount of heat and pressure applied (Specification ¶
31-32). Further the heat and pressure applied avoids complete melting of the
fibers at the outermost surfaces to prevent the resulting gradient density
material from including a non-flexible, brittle outermost surface
(Specification ¶ 33).
The mere fact that Vair uses like materials, i.e., a nonwoven
thermoplastic mat that has skin layers, does not provide sufficient evidence
that the mat of Vair would necessarily have an air flow resistance within the
claimed range. It may be possible to obtain the claimed air flow resistance
depending on what heat and pressure is applied by the nip rolls of Vair, but
that is not enough to support a finding of inherency. Vair’s description of
heat and pressure are broad and, in fact, encompass applying no pressure at
all. Without pressure there would appear to be no gradient density
generated.
In general, a limitation is inherent if it is the “natural result flowing
from” the explicit disclosure of the prior art. Schering Corp. v. Geneva
Pharms., 339 F.3d 1373, 1379, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1669 (Fed.Cir. 2003).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013