Appeal 2007-3182
Application 10/683,058
Since Boyle discloses that the cross-section of the filament has a
modification ratio of 2.4 to 5.0, which values are directly within the
preferred range of Helms, we are convinced that it would have been obvious
for one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the cross-sectional
configuration disclosed by Boyle for the filaments of Helms with the
reasonable expectation of obtaining a carpet having increased bulk and
reduced luster. Contrary to the thrust of Appellants' arguments that the
configuration of Boyles' hollow filament would not have motivated one of
ordinary skill in the art to use such configuration in the solid filaments of
Helms, we find no teaching in Boyle that the properties attributed to the
configuration of Boyle is due to the hollow nature of the filaments. Indeed,
inasmuch as Helms discloses that the filaments may be solid or hollow, and
have a modification ratio like the filaments of Appellants and Boyle, it
would seem that the increase in modification ratio discussed by Boyle would
apply to both solid and hollow filaments. Also, we note that the Boyle of the
reference is one of the present inventors, and Mr. Boyle has not proffered
any evidence on this record that the cross-sectional configuration of Boyle
increases the modification ratio of only hollow filaments.
Appellants cite Examples 3 and 6 of the present Specification to
demonstrate that solid filaments of the present invention are superior in
some respects to hollow filaments. However, such evidence is not germane
to the obviousness of employing the claimed cross-sectional configuration to
the solid filaments of Helms. Appellants have not demonstrated that the
claimed cross-sectional configuration produces unexpected results for solid
filaments relative to solid filaments having different cross-sectional
configurations.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013