Appeal No. 95-2622
Application 08/125,524
Appellant attempts to distinguish the claimed oriented
monofilaments from the oriented polymeric monofilaments taught
in McKay (‘749) and McKay (‘363) on the basis of size and
utility. In his Brief, appellant argues that McKay (1) uses
his monofilaments to improve the visual aesthetics of fabrics
made from yarn composed of the monofilaments, and (2) is not
at all interested in abrasion resistance and does not
recognize the
uses which appellant alone discovered for abrasion resistant
monofilaments of the same cross-sectional configuration (Br.,
pp. 6-7, bridging para.). In the Amendment filed January 24,
1994 (Paper No. 4), appellant pointed to distinctions in both
size and purpose (pp. 3-4, bridging para.):
. . . McKay, in both ‘363 and ‘749, deals with
textile
filaments which differ in size and purpose from the
presently claimed monofilaments. Specifically, the
objects
of the McKay patent are to provide a textile filament
having
reduced glitter or sparkle . . . . The solution provided
by McKay, in a textile filament, is to provide false-
twist
textured yarns having recognizable multi-lobal cross-
section
having deviations from pure symmetry. The required
number
of lobes (N) is between 6-10, and the modification ratio
(M)
is between 1.17 and 1.85 and the filament denier is more
- 16 -
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007