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