Ex Parte Sellars et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 19, 2012

11538746 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 19, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte WILLIAM R. SELLARS, JOHN C. SELLARS,
and THOMAS C. SHUTT
____________

Appeal 2011-007799
Application 11/538,746
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, TERRY J. OWENS, and KAREN M.
HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 10, 11, 13, 18-20, 22, 23, and
27 as unpatentable over Young (US 5,064,689, issued Nov. 12, 1991) in
view of Finnegan (US 2004/0247750 A1, pub. Dec. 9, 2004) and of claim 12
as unpatentable over these references and further in view of Haile (US
Appeal 2011-007799
Application 11/538,746

2
2004/0258910 A1, pub. Dec. 23, 2004). We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6.
We REVERSE.
Appellants claim a method of manufacturing an industrial absorbent
comprising applying liquid fire retardant to recycled cellulose followed by a
drying step, mixing the dried cellulose with bicomponent fiber, forming a
web/pad of the cellulose and bicomponent fiber, and heating the web/pad to
cause an outer layer of the bicomponent fiber to melt to bond at least some
of the bicomponent fiber to at least some of the cellulose (independent claim
10; see also independent claim 23).
Representative claim 10 reads as follows:
10. A method of manufacturing an industrial absorbent, the method
comprising:

obtaining recycled cellulose from a group of cellulose sources
including a source of post-industrial cellulose and a source of post-consumer
cellulose;

shredding the cellulose;

declumping the cellulose;

applying liquid fire retardant to the cellulose in a spray booth;

after applying the liquid fire retardant, drying the cellulose;

after drying the cellulose, mixing the cellulose with bicomponent
fiber;

milling the dried cellulose;

placing a first scrim on a forming wire positioned below a forming
head;
Appeal 2011-007799
Application 11/538,746

3
forming a web of the cellulose and bicomponent fiber on the first
scrim to form a pad; and

heating the pad in an oven to cause an outer layer of the bicomponent
fiber to melt to bond at least some of the bicomponent fiber to at least some
of the cellulose and to cause at least a portion of the first scrim to bond with
the web.

It is undisputed that Young discloses applying liquid thermoplastic or
thermoset binder to recycled cellulose followed by a drying step, mixing the
dried cellulose with, for example, synthetic fibers, forming a web of the
cellulose and synthetic fibers, and heating the web in order to cause the
binder-coated cellulose to bond with the synthetic fibers. Because Young
discloses using binders which are fire retardant (col. 9, ll. 64-68), the
Examiner considers Young's step of applying liquid binder to satisfy the
independent claim step of applying liquid fire retardant (Ans. para. bridging
3-4).
The Examiner acknowledges that Young fails to disclose the claimed
use of bicomponent fibers but concludes that it would have been obvious to
provide Young's generally disclosed synthetic fibers in the form of
bicomponent fibers specifically "wherein the bicomponent staple fibers
function as thermoset binder to further stabilize air-laid web formed by
conventional airlaid web-forming machine upon heating as suggested by
Finnegan et al (see paragraph 0018-0019)" (id. at 4).
Appellants contest this obviousness conclusion by arguing as follows:
Specifically, Young essentially forms binder material
coated fibers, and, in Young, the binder material on the
coated fibers fuses to other fibers and to the facing sheet.
Accordingly, there is no need to add the bicomponent
staple fibers, disclosed by Finnegan, as the coated fibers of
Appeal 2011-007799
Application 11/538,746

4
Young provide the necessary binding material. Such
bicomponent staple fibers of Finnegan would be redundant
and unnecessary in the process of Young.

(App. Br. 11).
Appellants' argument is persuasive.
In response to this argument, the Examiner merely reiterates the above
rationale that it would have been obvious to add bicomponent fibers to
Young's binder-coated cellulose fibers in order to obtain the thermoset
binder function performed by the bicomponent fibers to thereby further
stabilize the web of Young (Ans. para. bridging 8-9). The deficiency of this
rationale is that it is based on the implicit presumption that Young's web
requires further stabilization. This presumption is not only unsupported by
the Examiner but contradicted by Young. As correctly pointed out by
Appellants, Young expressly teaches that the minimum amount of binder
applied to the cellulose fibers must be adequate to bond the cellulose fibers
to the other fibers of the web (App. Br. 9, 11; Young col. 12, ll. 42-62).
For the above stated reasons, we cannot sustain the Examiner's above
§ 103 rejections.
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED

ssl