Appeal 2007-3955
Application 09/756,956
comprises the application of a printing paste to specific areas of the fabric
followed by dyeing the entire fabric (Answer 8-9).
Appellants’ principal argument is that the printing paste of Moore
comprises wetting agents therefore the printing paste would not physically
inhibit wetting of the fabric as required by claims 1, 22 and 38. Appellants
further contend that “[w]hile Moore may result in reduced shading in treated
areas, that reduction does not appear to correspond with a reduction in
wetability of the fabric as presently claim.” (Br. 11).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. As pointed out by the
Examiner, Moore discloses an aspect of the invention where the printing
paste can comprise a thickener and a dye blocking agent without a wetting
agent (Answer 11). Since the printing paste of Moore 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 of the fabric 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 Moore do not
possess some reduced wetability.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims 1-42 is
affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013