Appeal No. 95-2622
Application 08/125,524
embodied in the examples of McKay (‘363), as determined from
the length of the lobe slots, are:
Orifice Diameter
Example Minimum Maximum
I 0.016 inch (16 mils) 0.032 inch (32
mils)
II 0.018 inch (18 mils) 0.036 inch (36 mils)
III-1 0.018 inch (18 mils) 0.036 inch (36 mils)
III-2 0.018 inch (18 mils) 0.036 inch (36 mils)
III-3 0.026 inch (26 mils) 0.052 inch (52
mils)
III-4 0.018 inch (18 mils) 0.036 inch (36 mils)
III-5 0.018 inch (18 mils) 0.036 inch (36 mils)
IV-1 0.015 inch (15 mils) 0.030 inch (30 mils)
IV-2 0.024 inch (24 mils) 0.048 inch (48 mils)
VI 0.016 inch (16 mils) 0.032 inch (32 mils)
VII 0.018 inch (18 mils) 0.036 inch (36 mils)
IX 0.0112 inch (11.2 mils) 0.0224 inch (22.4 mils)
In view of the teaching of McKay (’749) or (McKay (‘363),
we hold that subject matter of appellant’s Claims 2-4 and 8-10
is prima facie unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. An
oriented polyamide monofilament of Claim 5 would have been
prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the
art in view of the teaching of McKay (‘749) alone. An
oriented polyester monofilament of Claims 8 and 9 would have
been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in
the art in view of the teaching of McKay (‘363) alone.
- 15 -
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007