Ex Parte Locher et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 29, 2008

10196836 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 29, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte ENGELBERT LÖCHER and MICHAEL HESS
__________

Appeal 2008-3331
Application 10/196,836
Technology Center 1700
__________

Decided: August 29, 2008
__________

Before DONALD E. ADAMS, RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, and
FRANCISCO C. PRATS, Administrative Patent Judges.

PRATS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to methods
of producing a spunbonded nonwoven fabric. The Examiner has rejected the
claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appeal 2008-3331
Application 10/196,836

Claims 1-13 stand rejected and are on appeal (App. Br. 2). Claim 1 is
illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows:
1. A method for the production of a spunbonded nonwoven
fabric, comprising spinning a linear filament sheet of
filaments arranged parallel next to one another laterally
crosswise to a production direction, in the form of a
curtain, from a plurality of spinning capillaries, with
aerodynamic take-off and stretching of the filament
sheet, wherein the filament sheet (8) which exits from a
stretching channel (12) or which is drawn off a spool is
moved laterally, crosswise, by an air stream from a
blowing shaft one of in front of and behind a plane of the
filament sheet (8), said air stream having periodically
changing directions applied alternately and aligned at a
slant to the filament sheet (8), seen in the horizontal
plane.

The Examiner applies the following documents in rejecting the
claims:
Weng et al. US 5,762,857 Jun. 9, 1998
Kurihara et al. US 5,312,500 May 17, 1994
Nommensen US 3,720,361 Mar. 13, 1973
Reba et al. US 4,285,452 Aug. 25, 1981
Sheets US 3,293,718 Dec. 27, 1966
Kuroiwa et al. US 6,524,521 B1 Feb. 25, 2003
Löcher1 et al. US 6,887,331 B2 May 3, 2005

1 The Examiner made a new ground of rejection in the Examiner’s Answer
for obviousness-type double patenting over Löcher (Ans. 3-5). Appellants
filed a Terminal Disclaimer on November 9, 2007 in response to that
rejection. The Terminal Disclaimer was accepted on January 8, 2008. The
obviousness-type double patenting rejection is therefore not before us and
we will not discuss the Löcher reference further.
2
Appeal 2008-3331
Application 10/196,836

The following rejections2 are before us for review:
Claims 1, 2, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Weng, Kurihara, and Nommensen (Ans. 5-6).
Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Weng, Kurihara, Nommensen, and Reba (Ans. 6-7).
Claims 5-11 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Weng, Kurihara, and Nommensen in view of either Sheets
or Kuroiwa (Ans. 7-8).
OBVIOUSNESS -- CLAIMS 1, 2, AND 12
ISSUE
The Examiner cites Weng as making spunbonded fabric from a sheet
of filament fibers in the form of a curtain, “wherein the filament sheet which
exits from a stretching channel is moved laterally, crosswise, by a pulsed
electrostatic current having periodically changing directions” (Ans. 5). The
Examiner concedes that Weng “fails to disclose air streams to move the
sheet of filaments” and cites Kurihara and Nommensen to meet that
limitation (id.).
Specifically, the Examiner cites Kurihara as disclosing “moving a
curtain of filaments crosswise to a deposition direction by using either
pulsed electromagnetic fields or streams of air aligned at a slant to the sheet
of filaments in both the horizontal and vertical directions” and Nommensen
as “show[ing] that a single air blower can be used to move an entire curtain
of filaments” (id.). Based on these teachings, the Examiner concludes that

2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 (Ans. 3).
3
Appeal 2008-3331
Application 10/196,836

one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it obvious to replace
Weng’s pulsed electrostatic current with a pulsed air stream “because
Kurihara et al. shows electrostatic charges and air streams to be alternates
for moving a curtain of filaments crosswise and because Nommensen
teaches that a single air stream can be used to move an entire curtain of
filaments” (id. at 6).
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s interpretation of Nommensen
as suggesting the claimed process is overbroad, because Nommensen’s
blowers are used to use move a filament curtain that is oriented parallel to
the production direction, rather than laterally crosswise to the production
direction, as required by claim 1 (App. Br. 7). Thus, Appellants argue, “use
of Nommensen’s single air stream, on either side of a crosswise oriented
filament curtain, would likely blow the filaments into each other like
dominos and would prevent the filaments from settling on the conveyor belt
in the intended pattern” (id. at 7-8).
Appellants further contend that “the straight blowing Nommensen
single air stream, placed in front of or behind a crosswise oriented filament
curtain, would not cause the filament curtain to move in crosswise direction”
(id. at 8). Therefore, Appellants conclude, “Nommensen is not fairly
interpreted as disclosing the use [of] a single air stream to move an entire
curtain of filaments of any orientation with respect to the direction of travel
of the nonwoven” (id.).
The issue with respect to this rejection, then, is whether the Examiner
has made a prima facie case that one of ordinary skill in the art viewing
Kurihara and Nommensen would have considered it obvious to modify
Weng’s method of using an electrostatic field to laterally move a curtain of
4
Appeal 2008-3331
Application 10/196,836

spun filaments by instead applying an air stream in front of or behind the
plane of the filament curtain, the air stream having alternately applied
periodically changing directions.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Claim 1 recites a method of producing a spunbonded nonwoven
fabric. The claim requires spinning a linear sheet of filaments arranged
parallel next to each other in the form of a curtain. The curtain must be
oriented “crosswise to a production direction.”
Once the filament sheet exits from a stretching channel or spool, the
sheet is “moved laterally, crosswise, by an air stream from a blowing shaft
one of in front of and behind a plane of the filament sheet.” The air stream
must have “periodically changing directions applied alternately,” and must
also be “aligned at a slant to the filament sheet . . ., seen in the horizontal
plane.”
Claims 2 and 12 recite a similar process, requiring the same
orientations of the filament curtain and air stream.
2. Weng discloses a process in which “a nonwoven web is made from a
plurality of extruded polymer filaments, and the filaments are randomized by
subjecting them to a pulsed or irregular electrostatic charge” (Weng, col. 2,
ll. 5-8).
3. Figure 1 of Weng, reproduced below, shows “a perspective schematic
view of the apparatus for carrying out the method” of making the nonwoven
web (Weng, col. 2, ll. 43-44):

5
Appeal 2008-3331
Application 10/196,836

Figure 1 shows the apparatus “spinning a linear filament sheet of
filaments, 8, arranged parallel next to one another, downward in the form of
a curtain, from a plurality of spinning capillaries in a head, 6, with
aerodynamic take-off and stretching of the filament sheet in an attenuator,
10” (Ans. 5). “Upon exit from the slot device 10, the solid filaments are free
of any substantial tension and are deposited on a moving conveyor 18 to
form a continuous web 20. The web 20 is typically further processed, such
as by bonding and by rolling up into a finished roll” (Weng, col. 3, ll. 5-9).
4. To form a web from the parallel oriented sheet of filaments, Weng
discloses that an oscillating electric current is applied to the filament curtain:
In operation, the electrode bar 22 is supplied with high
voltage, and an electrostatic field is established between the bar
and ground 26. If the field is pulsed, the filaments 16 are
deflected at an angle away from the normal line of travel.
Repeated pulsing causes the filaments to oscillate back and
forth by an electric wind. A substantial amount of this
movement is in the cross machine direction, or in a direction
6
Appeal 2008-3331
Application 10/196,836

perpendicular or at obtuse angles relative to the direction of
movement of the conveyor 18 as shown in FIG. 1. By
oscillating the filaments in the cross machine direction, the
tensile strength of the resulting fabric in the same direction is
greatly improved.

(Weng, col. 4, ll. 11-22.)
5. Weng differs from claims 1, 2, and 12 in not disclosing the use of an
air stream to move the sheet or curtain of filament fibers.
6. Kurihara discloses a method of making a nonwoven fabric or web
similar to Weng’s, in which individual filaments of the fabric “are vibrated,
the vibration of the filaments are amplified to collect the filaments into an
ellipse having an elongated major axis, and the filaments are scattered and
spread so as to be arranged in a substantially major axis direction”
(Kurihara, col. 2, ll. 31-35; see also Figure 4).
7. Figures 11A and 11B of Kurihara, reproduced below, “are sectional
views each showing a spinning nozzle for explaining a typical example of a
method of vibrating a spun filament” (Kurihara, col. 11, ll. 35-37):

7
Appeal 2008-3331
Application 10/196,836

Kurihara describes Figure 11A as follows:

FIG. 11A shows a method of spraying a small fluid flow
331 (mostly air stream) from a portion close to a spinning
nozzle 332 to cause vibration. A polymer 334 is spun from the
spinning nozzle 332. As shown in FIG. 11A, a filament 335 is
spirally vibrated by an action of the fluid flow jetted as
indicated by an arrow 333.

(Kurihara, col. 11, ll. 39-44.)
8. Kurihara describes Figure 11B as follows:
FIG. 11B shows a method of applying a magnetic field to
vibrate a filament. A polymer 341 is spun from a spinning
nozzle 342. The spun filament is charged by a high voltage E
applied from an electrode 343. This filament is passed through
a magnetic filed in which N and S poles are alternated at a high
speed. This magnetic field is generated by supplying an
alternating current from a power source 344 to electromagnets
8
Appeal 2008-3331
Application 10/196,836

345 and 346. As a result, a filament 347 is vibrated (moved) in
zigzag. Alternatively, the filament can be spirally vibrated by
rotating the magnetic field at a high speed.

(Kurihara, col. 11, ll. 46-65.)
9. Nommensen discloses “a process for the preparation of a plastics fiber
fleece, in which filaments are moved towards a conveying plane and, prior
to their lying down on this conveying plane, are zigzagged” (Nommensen,
col. 1, ll. 4-7). Nommensen discloses that “the zigzag is effected by means
of air flows slanting upwards, which hit the filaments in a free space” (id. at
col. 1, ll. 19-22).
10. Figure 1 of Nommensen, reproduced below, “represents a method of
realizing a unit used to lay down the filaments on a conveying plane”
(Nommensen, col. 2, ll. 9-10):

Nommensen describes the process shown in the figure as follows:

After having left a spinning nozzle, 1, a number of fluid
filaments, 2, for instance polyamide fibers with a temperature
of approximately 260° C, are cooled to about 145° C over a
distance of, for instance, 30 cm, using air of 20° C from a
blowing device, 3. The filaments, with a diameter of, for
instance, 400 microns, will then have become reduced to, for
9
Appeal 2008-3331
Application 10/196,836

instance, 340 microns by the stretching force exerted by the
injection air.

(Nommensen, col. 2, ll. 22-30.)
11. Nommensen explains, in the context of Figure 1, how air is used move
the curtain of filaments:
The housing or chamber, 7, is alternately traversed by two air
flows, one air flow proceeding from the injection aperture, 9, to
the suction-off opening, 12, and the other from the injection
aperture, 10, to the suction-off opening, 11. The conveying
plane, 8, is permeable to air. At the bottom there is a suction
chamber, 13. The fact that air is drawn off through the
conveying plane effects that, after being zigzagged, the
filaments settle smoothly on the conveying plane, 8.

(Nommensen, col. 2, ll. 50-59.)
12. Figures 2 and 3 of Nommensen, reproduced below, show “a top view
of a few units arranged one behind the other in the direction of conveyance
over a conveying plane” (Figure 2), and “a conveying plane” showing the
pattern by which the various blower units in Figure 2 lay down the filaments
(Figure 3) (Nommensen, col. 2, ll. 11-16):

Nommensen describes Figure 2:
10
Appeal 2008-3331
Application 10/196,836

FIG. 2 shows four units, 14, 15, 16 and 17, over the
conveying plane, 8. The curtain of filaments, 18, in the various
drawing shafts is in the unit, 14, in a plane which is normal to
the longitudinal direction of the conveying plane, 8, and in the
units, 15, 16 and 17, in a plane which is parallel to the
longitudinal direction of the conveying plane, 8.

(Nommensen, col. 3, ll. 34-40.)
13. Nommensen describes how Figure 3 shows the filament pattern laid
down by air blower units 14 and 15 in Figure 2:
In the unit, 14, the zigzag of the filaments is parallel to
the longitudinal direction of the conveying plane, 8. Seen from
above, a filament from the unit, 14, not considering turbulences,
forms a straight line, 19, on the conveying plane, 8 (FIG. 3),
but more or less a line 20 when seen from the side, the unit, 15,
has been placed over the conveying plane, 8, at an angle of 45°
to the longitudinal direction. Not considering the turbulences,
this unit lays the filaments on the conveying plane according to
a line 21.

(Nommensen, col. 3, ll. 41-50.)
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“In proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office, the
Examiner bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness
based upon the prior art.” In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1265 (Fed. Cir.
1992). “[O]bviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim.”
CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Intern. Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
(citing In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974)).
Emphasizing a flexible approach to the obviousness question, the
Supreme Court has nonetheless similarly noted that “it can be important to
identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the
11
Appeal 2008-3331
Application 10/196,836

relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention
does . . . because inventions in most, if not all, instances rely upon building
blocks long since uncovered, and claimed discoveries almost of necessity
will be combinations of what, in some sense, is already known.” KSR Int'l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007) (emphasis added); see also
id. at 1740-41 (requiring a determination of “whether there was an apparent
reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent
at issue”) (emphasis added).
ANALYSIS
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not made a prima
facie case that one of ordinary skill in the art viewing Kurihara and
Nommensen would have considered it obvious to modify Weng’s method of
using an electrostatic field to laterally move a curtain of spun filaments by
instead applying an air stream in front of or behind the plane of the filament
curtain.
We note, as pointed out by the Examiner, that Weng discloses a
method of spinning a linear filament sheet in the form of a curtain, crosswise
to the direction of the sheet’s receiving conveyer, that is, crosswise to the
production direction (see FF 2, 3), and that Weng moves the sheet laterally
by an electrostatic field (FF 4). We also note that column 11 of Kurihara
shows that filaments exiting a spinning nozzle can be moved with either a
stream of air or electrostatically (FF 7, 8).
However, the cited portion of Kurihara only discloses the oscillation
of individual fibers with jets of air, as opposed to a filament sheet in the
form of a curtain, as recited in claims 1, 2, and 12 (see FF 7). While
Nommensen discloses using an air stream to move a spun filament sheet in
12
Appeal 2008-3331
Application 10/196,836

the form of curtain (see FF 9, 10), we do not agree with the Examiner that
Nommensen discloses doing so in the manner recited in claims 1, 2, and 12.
Specifically, with respect to Nommensen’s Figure 1, the filament
curtain 18 is arranged in a plane parallel to the direction of the conveyer 8
(see FF 10). However, claims 1, 2, and 12 require the curtain to be spun
such that it is oriented “crosswise to a production direction.” Thus, while
the filament curtain in Nommensen’s Figure 1 may be viewed as moving
across the production direction in response to an air stream applied in front
of the sheet, as recited in claims 1, 2, and 12, the filament curtain is not
oriented “crosswise to a production direction” as required in those claims.
Turning to Nommensen’s Figure 2, which is a top view of blower
units arranged over a conveying plane, the filament curtain 18 in blower
embodiments 15 and 16 is again oriented parallel to the production direction,
contrary to the requirements of claims 1, 2, and 12 (FF 12).
The Examiner argues that “[a]n additional embodiment of Fig. 2
shows unit 14 which has the curtain of filaments, 18, arranged laterally to
the production direction and the blowing shafts in front of and behind the
plane of the filament sheet which produces the line of filaments shown as 20
in Fig. 3” (Ans. 9). The Examiner urges that “[i]t is this embodiment
depicted as unit 14 of Nommensen which is included in the combination of
references to show that a single blower either in front of or behind a curtain
of filaments arranged crosswise to the production direction can move the
entire curtain of filaments” (id.).
We are not persuaded by this argument. We agree with the Examiner
that Nommensen’s blower embodiment 14 moves a curtain of filaments
arranged crosswise to the production direction with an air stream blown
13
Appeal 2008-3331
Application 10/196,836

from a shaft in front of the plane of the sheet (see FF 12). However, we do
not agree with the Examiner that Nommensen discloses that the curtain
moves “laterally, crosswise” across the production direction, as required by
claims 1, 2, and 12.
Specifically, Nommensen states that, “[s]een from above, a filament
from the unit, 14, not considering turbulences, forms a straight line, 19, on
the conveying plane, 8 (FIG. 3), but more or less a line 20 when seen from
the side” (Nommensen, col. 3, ll. 43-46 (FF 13) (emphasis added)).
Nommensen therefore discloses that, rather than creating a zigzag pattern
across the production direction, as required by claims 1 and 2, the movement
induced by blower 14 creates a zigzagged filament 20 along the production
direction (Nommensen, Figure 3 (FF 12)). Thus, because the air stream-
induced movement of the filament curtain in embodiment 14 results in a
straight line filament 19 that is parallel to the production direction (see FF
12, 13), the movement of the curtain cannot be lateral or crosswise to the
production direction, as required by claims 1 and 2.
We therefore agree with Appellants that the prior art cited by the
Examiner does not disclose the claimed step of laterally moving a curtain of
spun filaments arranged crosswise to the production direction by applying an
air stream in front of or behind the plane of the filament curtain. Moreover,
the Examiner does not explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been prompted to modify Nommensen, or either of the other
references, alone or in combination, to perform such a step.
Because we do not agree with the Examiner that the cited references
teach or suggest all of the limitations in claims 1, 2, and 12, we conclude
that the Examiner has not made a prima facie case that those claims would
14
Appeal 2008-3331
Application 10/196,836

have been obvious in view of the cited references. We therefore reverse the
obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, and 12.
OBVIOUSNESS -- CLAIMS 3 AND 4
Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Weng, Kurihara, Nommensen, and Reba (Ans. 6-7).
We will reverse this rejection as well. Because they depend from
claims 1 and 2, respectively, claims 3 and 4 include all of the limitations of
claims 1 and 2. As discussed above, we agree with Appellants that the
Examiner has not shown that the processes recited in claims 1 and 2 would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Weng,
Kurihara, and Nommensen.
We do not see, and the Examiner does not point to, any disclosure in
the Reba reference that remedies the shortcomings of the Weng, Kurihara,
and Nommensen references with respect to claims 1 and 2. We therefore
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 4 over Weng, Kurihara,
Nommensen, and Reba.
OBVIOUSNESS -- CLAIMS 5-11 AND 13
Claims 5-11 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Weng, Kurihara, and Nommensen in view of either Sheets
or Kuroiwa (Ans. 7-8).
Claims 5 and 6 are the independent claims subject to this ground of
rejection. They read as follows:
5. A method for the production of a spunbonded nonwoven
fabric comprising spinning a linear filament sheet of
filaments arranged parallel next to one another laterally
crosswise to a production direction, in the form of a
curtain, from a plurality of spinning capillaries, with
aerodynamic take-off and stretching of the filament
15
Appeal 2008-3331
Application 10/196,836

sheet, wherein the filament sheet (8) which exits from a
stretching channel (12) or which is drawn off a spool is
moved laterally, crosswise, by an air stream from a
blowing shaft one of in front of and behind a plane of the
filament sheet (8), said air stream having periodically
changing directions applied alternately to the filament
sheet (8), seen in the horizontal plane; wherein the
blowing direction is directed perpendicular onto the
filament sheet (8).

6. A method for the production of a spunbonded nonwoven
fabric comprising spinning fibers drawn out of a plurality
of spinning capillaries, using a melt-blown spinning
process, in a plane, downward laterally crosswise to a
production direction, in the form of a curtain, wherein the
fibers (8) are moved laterally, crosswise, by an air stream
from a blowing shaft one of in front of and behind a
plane of the filament sheet (8), said air stream having
periodically changing directions applied alternately to the
fibers (8), seen in the horizontal plane;
wherein the blowing direction is directed perpendicular
onto the fibers (8).

Thus, claims 5 and 6 both recite essentially the same processes as
recited in claims 1 and 2, with the additional limitation that the blowing
direction is perpendicular to the fibers.
Claims 7-11 all depend directly or ultimately from either claim 1 or 2,
and recite specific angles for the blowing air stream (claims 7, 8, and 11), or
that the blowing direction is slanted downwards onto the filament sheet
(claims 9 and 10). Claim 13 recites the method of claim 1, “wherein the
filament sheet (8) is additionally deflected by periodically moved flow guide
surfaces.”
The Examiner concedes that the combined Weng, Kurihara, and
Nommensen references “fail to show the instantly claimed fluidic angles”
16
Appeal 2008-3331
Application 10/196,836

(Ans. 7). To meet the limitations of claims 5-11 and 13, the Examiner cites
Sheets and Kuroiwa as using periodically rotated coanda surfaces to vary the
direction of filament streams exiting from spinning nozzles (see id. at 7-8).
The Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to use the rotating
devices of either Sheets or Kuroiwa et al. into the method of the
references as combined because Sheets teaches that this air flow
produces a curtain of filaments which lays down into a non-
woven web of extremely good uniformity (column 6, lines 3-
11) and Kuroiwa et al. teaches that the particular fiber
alignment is effective to increase the mechanical strength of the
filaments (column 7, lines 50-55).

(Id. at 8.)
We will reverse this rejection as well. As discussed above,
independent claims 5 and 6 contain all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2.
As also discussed above, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not
shown that the processes recited in claims 1 and 2 would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Weng, Kurihara, and
Nommensen.
We do not see, and the Examiner does not point to, any disclosure in
either Sheets or Kuroiwa that remedies the shortcomings of the Weng,
Kurihara, and Nommensen references with respect to claims 1 and 2. We
therefore reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 6 over Weng,
Kurihara, Nommensen, and Kuroiwa or Sheets.
Claims 7-11 and 13 also include all of the limitations of claim 1 or
claim 2 because they depend ultimately or directly from claim 1 or claim 2.
17
Appeal 2008-3331
Application 10/196,836

We therefore also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7-11 and 13
over Weng, Kurihara, Nommensen, and Kuroiwa or Sheets.
SUMMARY
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, and 12 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weng, Kurihara, and
Nommensen.
We also reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 3 and
4 over Weng, Kurihara, Nommensen, and Reba.
We also reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 5-11
and 13 over Weng, Kurihara, and Nommensen in view of Sheets or
Kuroiwa.

REVERSED

cdc

KENYON & KENYON LLP
ONE BROADWAY
NEW YORK NY 10004
18