Appeal No. 96-4043
Application 08/235,538
wherein (4) is a warp consisting of crimped fibers,
(5) is a weft consisting of a bondle [sic, bundle] of
fine fibers, and (6), (7) and (8) are raised fibers.
When a woven fabric having an appropriate number of
floating wefts is subjected to raising processing,
raised fibers (6) in the form of downy hairs consisting
mainly of fine fibers of the weft (5) or raised fibers
(7) in the form of small loops are formed, the weft (5)
is mutually restricted with the warp (4), the weft does
not float in the form of a large loop and a uniform
suede-like woven fabric having a good cover of raised
fibers is obtained [column 7, lines 42 through 53].
Okamoto also teaches that the woven fabric may be made of
polyester fibers (see columns 6 and 7) and that the fabric may be
sheared after the raising processing to obtain an excellent nap
(see column 15, lines 11 through 18).
In explaining the rejection of claim 12, the examiner
contends that
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to provide the film cassette of Mizuno with
the material of Okamoto for use as a light trap. No
unusual or unobvious result is attained by substituting
one old and well known type of woven, napped and
sheared material for another to provide a similar
function. Also, the use of a spun, staple length yarn
for the weft or warp in the fabric of Mizuno as
modified by Okamoto would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art since such types of yarn are
old and well known for their durability and the
examiner takes official notice of same [Paper No. 8,
page 3].
The appellant, on the other hand, argues that “[t]here is no
teaching nor is it obvious to substitute the fabric of Okamoto
for that of Mizuno. Neither Mizuno or Okamoto recognize[s] that
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007