Appeal No. 2003-0580
Application No. 09/139,081
because Jenkins’ disclosure pertains to acid dyeing nylons in
general which have been rendered cationic dyeable. The
disclosure is not limited to the exemplified nylons. See In re
Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA
1982); In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651, 176 USPQ 196, 198 (CCPA
1972).
The appellants argue that because Lin teaches that his
sheath is resistant to staining by acid dyes, one of ordinary
skill in the art would not have expected the sheath to be
stainable by Jenkins’ acid dyes (brief, page 8). The acid dyes
to which Lin’s sheath is stain resistant are not the types of
dyes used to dye carpet fibers but, rather, are the acid dyes in
Kool-Aid® (col. 3, line 36). Jenkins’ cationic dyeable nylons
also are resistant to Kool-Aid® stains (col. 7, lines 36-37).
Hence, Jenkins would have indicated to one of ordinary skill in
the art that Lin’s sheath is dyeable with Jenkins’ acid dyes to
produce a dyed sheath which is resistant to Kool-Aid® stains.
The appellants argue that Lin’s disclosure that the fibers
can be pigmented teaches away from dyeing the fibers (brief,
page 8). Lin merely teaches that pigments are an optional
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007