Appeal No. 96-0644
Application No. 08/056,721
process steps by either Edwards or Boustany. In fact, the
plasticizer taught by Edwards does not bond or adhere to the
fiber as does the accelerator of appellants’ method and
product but “effectively leaves the fibre surfaces” during
mixing of the fiber with the polymer (column 5, lines 19-26).
The examiner appears to conclude that the fiber
orientation process suggested by Boustany (column 3, lines 43-
63) would be “equivalent” for forming domains and the oriented
product of Edwards would be the same as that presently claimed
(answer, pages 3 and 4). However, the examiner presents no
factual basis for supporting this conclusion. In fact, the
process of Boustany pretreats fibers with a rubber latex,
orients the fiber into the matrix, and then cures the
resulting composite (column 19, lines 1-28). Therefore the
surface of the fibers in Boustany could not have been surface
treated with a cure accelerator, as required for the product
of appealed claim 6.
“Where the legal conclusion [of obviousness] is not
supported by facts it cannot stand.” In re Warner, 379 F.2d
1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967). For the foregoing
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007