Appeal No. 95-2622
Application 08/125,524
prima facie obviousness rejection is not supported if
no reference shows or suggests the newly-discovered
properties and results . . . is not the law.
Appellant’s arguments with regard to size distinctions
and his support therefor are somewhat confusing. First, the
record does not show how McKay’s maximum acceptable denier of
10.88 was calculated. Second, given that maximum calculated
denier, the record is unclear as to why the diameter of the
presently claimed oriented polymeric monofilament is
necessarily several times bigger than the diameter of the
monofilaments taught by McKay. Hackh’s Chemical Dictionary,
supra, at page 202 (copy attached), defines “denier” as “[t]he
thickness of a thread or yarn expressed as the weight in grams
of 9,000 meters. Cf. tex.” However, the thickness of the
oriented polymeric monofilament of appellant’s claims is
defined solely in linear terms, i.e., in mils. Appellant has
not explained why the claimed oriented polyamide or polyester
multilobal monofilament which has a diameter of about 4 to 60
mils would not have been obvious to persons having ordinary
skill in the art in view of McKay’s teaching of polyamide or
polyester multilobal monofilament having a diameter of about
11 to 52 mils.
- 18 -
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007