Appeal No. 1997-1135
Application 08/375,196
3-7). Appellant’s claims, however, require that the
components of the fiber are processed using an identical
processing condition or substantially identical processing
conditions. The examiner points out that appellant’s claims
encompass use of substantially identical processing conditions
(answer, page 7), but has not established that Keuchel’s use
of different processing conditions to obtain the desired
difference in thermal histories falls within the scope of
appellant’s requirement of an identical processing condition
or substantially identical processing conditions. Thus, the
examiner has not shown that if the references were combined as
proposed by the examiner, appellant’s claimed invention would
be obtained. See Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837
F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1439 (Fed. Cir.), cert.
denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988). The examiner argues that Keuchel
was not applied for its disclosure of different processing
conditions for the components (answer, pages 7-8), but does
not explain why the applied references would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to use Keuchel’s single polymer
without using the differing processing conditions which, the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007