Appeal 2007-1374
Application 10/701,714
using International Orange dye to dye the outer sheath, there is no reference
to acid dyes, or any other class of dyes (id.).
The Examiner responds that both references are directed to similar fire
resistant safety fabrics with similar polymer compositions and that, coupled
with the known use of International Orange dye for meeting the claimed
conspicuity requirements, the art provides the basis for the finding of a
reason to combine the teachings of the references (Answer 5-6).
The sole issue arising out of the contentions of Appellants and the
Examiner is: Have Appellants overcome the rejection by showing that the
evidence does not support the Examiner’s finding of a reason to combine?
See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection by
showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness” (emphasis
omitted)).
Appellants provide no additional arguments directed to any particular
claim or to the additional subsidiary rejections which add the Lunsford
references as evidence of obviousness. We, therefore, decide the appeal as
to all the claims and rejections based on the analysis of the above issue with
respect to claim 1.
B. Facts
Zhu describes a flame retardant intimate fiber blend of aramid fiber,
modacrylic staple fiber, and polyamide staple fiber (Zhu ¶ 4). The intimate
blend is used to make fire resistant fabrics suitable for people who work near
flames, high temperatures, or electric arc flashes, and the like (Zhu ¶ 10).
Zhu does not provide any detailed teaching about dying in the general
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013