Appeal 2006-2045
Application 10/284,357
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. Taylor specifically teaches
that the desired “hand” characteristics are attributable to the high bulk and
“high filament” content of the fabric (col. 8, ll. 47-52). Taylor also teaches
that the preferred bulked denier of the filling yarns is substantially greater
than, and preferably about twice, the weight of the false twist texturized
warp yarns (col. 7, ll. 1-8). Taylor then teaches that the preferred
construction of his fabric “may be modified within the following ranges” to
provide a fabric having the desired improved “hand” characteristics (col. 8,
ll. 53-65). The teachings of Taylor are also reinforced by Goad, who teaches
that the fabric density is a function of the “essential variables” of denier,
number of ends and number of picks (col. 3, ll. 51-58; see also Taylor, col.
5, ll. 1-3). In view of these teachings and Example 1 of Taylor, we
determine that it would have been prima facie obvious to optimize the
number of filaments in either or both the warp and weft yarns of Taylor to
provide a fabric having the desired improved “hand” characteristics, using
“high” filament counts and more filaments in the two-ply weft yarns than the
single ply warp yarns as taught by Taylor. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d
1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“The law is replete
with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the
prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. [Citations
omitted]. These cases have consistently held that in such a situation, the
applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by
showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the
prior art range.”); In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-04, 7 USPQ2d 1673,
1681 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“Obviousness does not require absolute predictability
of success. … There is always at least a possibility of unexpected results,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007