Appeal 2007-2157
Application 11/000,692
Appellants argue that Gordon similarly fails to disclose the
“fundamental aspect of the present invention” - “that the cleaning implement
(i.e. pleated fibrous web) must disintegrate in its physical geometry during a
relatively short cleansing lifetime” (id.). Appellants argue that the
references do not state anything about engineering a self-destructive element
into the cleansing implement, nor do “the references disclose or suggest
hydroentanglement between two forks of a pleat” (id. at 9).
We agree with Appellants that the cited references do not support a
prima facie case of obviousness. In particular, we agree that the references
would not have suggested a cleaning implement having pleats that are “held
together by hydroentangled fibers or restrained from unfolding by a weak
adhesive to last from about 3 to about 100” washing events.
The Specification does not define the term “weak adhesive.”
However, the Specification states that “adjacent pleats and forks can be
temporarily restrained from unfolding by a weak adhesive. Preferably an
applied adhesive will be water-soluble such as a starch or modified starch.
Synthetic polymers may also be employed as adhesives, an example of which
are the ethylene/vinyl acetate and polyvinyl pyrrolidone polymers”
(Specification 4, emphasis added).
McMeekin discloses that the textured film comprising the pleated
cleansing device can be made from “ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer”
(McMeekin, col. 3, ll. 65-67). Thus, the film constituting McMeekin’s
cleansing device can be made of the same material described in the
Specification as a weak adhesive.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013