Appeal No. 2000-2013
Application No. 08/766,544
this record,4 the effect of the different process steps in the
chemical treatment embodiment has not been shown to be “equivalent”
to the heat treatment embodiment and the examiner has not presented
any convincing evidence or reasoning to support the determination
that these two embodiments of Hamano are “equivalent.” Although
Hamano never expressly discloses whether supports are used or
necessary for the loops of the chemical treatment embodiment, one
of ordinary skill in this art would have reasonably expected that
supports are unnecessary since the loops enter into the solvent
bath in an upside down position (see Figure 8). However, it has
not been shown that one of ordinary skill in this art would have
reasonably expected that supports would have been unnecessary in
the heat treatment embodiment of Figures 1-7. As also correctly
argued by appellants (Brief, page 11), the examiner is ignoring the
specific teachings of Hamano that supports must be used to
“maintain the loops in their upstanding position” during the heat
treatment embodiment. Col. 1, ll. 62-66; see also claim 1.
4The examiner’s statements regarding “molecular mobility”
and the equivalence of solvent softening and heat softening have
been considered (Answer, page 8). However, these statements have
not been supported by any evidence on this record, as the vague
reference to “polymer textbooks” (Answer, page 8) has not been
made of record.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007