Appeal No. 95-2622
Application 08/125,524
l. 1), are “sufficiently yieldable so as to be deformed by a
covering yarn” (Spencer, p. 3, col. 1, l. 22-24).
Spencer states (Spencer, p. 2, col. 1, l. 52-75):
The filaments may be formed by extruding or casting
latex, rubber or rubber-containing fluids, or by
collecting
latex or the like upon a suitable heated member, or by
any combination of these or other suitable processes.
For example, all of the filaments shown in Figs. 1 to 12
inclusive, may be made by extrusion through a suitable
orifice, using a rubber composition which has been
thickened
by suitable agents such as sodium silicate so that the
extruded mass retains the cross-section of the orifice
until
coagulation occurs. . . .
The rubber filament may be formed from any suitable
rubber composition whether in the form of natural or
artificial dispersions of rubber or solutions or plastic
compositions of natural or synthetic rubbers or suitable
mixtures of the same.
However, Spencer (1) prefers “to employ latex in the
manufacture of the rubber filament of the invention” (Spencer,
p. 2, col. 2, l. 2-4), and (2) lacks any teaching to draw the
melt-extruded, elastic polymeric monofilament from 3.4 to 7.0
times its original length.
2. Rejection under § 103 in view of Spencer or Gruhn
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable in view of the teaching of either Spencer or
Gruhn. We reverse both of these rejections.
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007