Ex parte HOLLAND - Page 7




          Appeal No. 96-4043                                                          
          Application 08/235,538                                                      


          modified in view of Okamoto would have been obvious to one of               
          ordinary skill in the art.                                                  
               Moreover, the above noted teachings of Mizuno and Okamoto              
          regarding the use of polyester belie the appellant’s argument               
          (see page 3 in the main brief) that the references would not have           
          suggested “warp yarns of substantially 100% polyester” as recited           
          in claim 14.                                                                
               For these reasons, the differences between the subject                 
          matter recited in claims 12 and 14 and the prior art are such               
          that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the           
          time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in            
          the art.  Therefore, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.                
           103 rejection of these claims.                                            
               We shall also sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.  103 rejection           
          of claim 13, which depends from claim 12, since the appellant has           
          not argued such with any reasonable specificity, thereby allowing           
          this claim to stand or fall with its parent claim (see In re                
          Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir.                
          1987)).                                                                     






                                          7                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007