Appeal 2007-2157
Application 11/000,692
polyethylene, polyesters, and polyolefins,” which can be made by
hydroentanglement (Answer 5). The Examiner concludes that one of
ordinary skill would have considered it obvious to “process the non-woven
synthetic materials of McMeekin et al in a hydroentanglement technique
because it would be cost effective in not requiring additional binding
material and as suggested by [Hauser] said hydroentangled technique
increases the strength of the materials” (id. at 6).
Appellants argue that Hauser fails to remedy the shortcomings of
McMeekin and Gordon (Br. 11). Appellants argue that even if Hauser were
“to suggest a pleated material formed from hydroentangled fiber, this still
would not negate the central elements of the independent claims. In those
claims, the hydroentanglement is between two forks of a pleat so as to hold
the forks temporarily together” (id.).
Although we agree with the Examiner that the limitation added by
claim 6 does not require that the pleats of the claimed device be held
together by hydroentanglement, we do not agree with his conclusion that the
cited references support a prima facie case of obviousness, because claim 6
incorporates the limitations of claim 1.
As discussed above, claim 1 requires the pleats to be held together by
either hydroentanglement or a weak adhesive, and the Examiner has not
adequately shown that that limitation was taught or suggested by McMeekin
or Gordon. The Examiner has also not pointed to anything in Hauser that
would have suggested adhering the pleats of McMeekin’s device by either
hydroentanglement or a weak adhesive. We therefore agree with Appellants
that Hauser does not remedy the deficiency of McMeekin and Gordon. We
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013