Appeal 2007-3955
Application 09/756,956
we will sustain each of the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons set forth in
the present record. We add the following.1
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a process for
manufacturing patterned fabrics. The claimed process involves applying a
water soluble chemical substance to selected regions of a fabric according to
a pattern. The chemical substance preferably includes a print paste
comprising a thickening agent and water (Specification 10). The treated
regions are characterized as having reduced surface wetability for a period of
time greater than the fabric is in contact with the aqueous dye liquor
(Specification 9). In some embodiments, the chemical substance may
include a dye so as to be colored differently from the surrounding regions of
the base fabric (Specification 11). The chemical substance is preferably
dried prior to subsequent treatment with the dye liquor (Specification 12).
Subsequently, dye liquor is exposed, continuously or semi-continuously, to
the entire fabric until untreated regions are saturated while treated regions
are less than fully saturated to thereby form a patterned fabric (Specification
12).
The Rejection over Kanzig
The Examiner determined that Kanzig teaches and suggests a printing
process for fabrics that comprises the application of a printing paste to
1 Appellants have not presented arguments directed to all the rejected claims.
We select claim 1 as representative of the rejected claims. We will also
address the Appellants’ arguments directed to specific claims.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013