Appeal No. 2004-1583
Application No. 09/760,962
596 (CCPA 1980); In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430,
433-34 (CCPA 1977).
The appellants argue that U.S. Patent No. 5,718,972 issued
to Murase et al. on Feb. 17, 1998 teaches away from the claimed
invention. (Appeal brief at 6 and 7.) Specifically, the
appellants urge (id. at 6):
Murase states that it is not desirable to split
continuous multicomponent fibers using water jet
needling since damage to the heat bonded areas will
occur (see column 7, lines 42-45). This teaching is
in direct contrast to the present invention.
Therefore, one skilled in the art would be directed
away from splitting and entangling the fibers using a
needling or water jet (hydroentangling), as suggested
by the Examiner.
This argument is unpersuasive. Murase merely teaches the
advantages of wrinkling over hydroentangling of heat bonded
bicomponent conjugate filaments. Murase never states that
hydroentangling would render a method for forming nonwoven
bonded fabric to be inoperable. To the contrary, Murase
suggests that such a method was well known in the art and
further supports the obviousness of the claimed invention.
(Column 7, lines 27-30.) In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31
USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007