Appeal 2007-3955
Application 09/756,956
specific areas of a fabric followed by dyeing the entire fabric (Answer 3-5).
Kanzig discloses that a printing paste can comprise thickeners (Kanzig 6).
Kanzig discloses the printing paste can be dried before subsequent treatment
(Kanzig 8).
Appellants argue that the exemplified printing paste of Kanzig
comprises ethylene oxide with castor oil. Appellant contends that these
components are understood to be wetting agents. Thus, Appellants contend
that the printing paste of Kanzig increases the wetability of the substrate
fabric (Br. 6-8).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. As pointed out by the
Examiner, Answer 9, Kanzig exemplifies embodiments that do not include
ethylene oxide with castor oil. Further, Kanzig discloses the printing paste
is applied to the fabric and dried prior to subsequent treatment. Since the
printing paste of Kanzig is dried prior to subsequent treatment and comprises
similar components to those utilized in the claimed chemical substance, it is
reasonable to believe that the treated area would have some reduced
wetability compared to the remaining portions of the fabric. Appellants
have not directed us to evidence that establishes the treated and dried
portions of Kanzig do not possess some reduced wetability.
The Rejection over Thomas
The Examiner determined that Thomas teaches and suggests a
printing process for fabrics that comprises the application of a water soluble
acid dyeable polymer (printing paste) to specific areas of a fabric followed
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013