Appeal No. 95-2622
Application 08/125,524
35 U.S.C. § 103 in view the combined teachings of Spencer or
Gruhn, McKay (‘363) or McKay (‘749), and Bradley or Aharoni.
However, our reasons for affirming the rejection again differ
significantly from the examiner’s explanation of the
rejection. We rely exclusively on the teachings of McKay
(‘749) and Bradley. Accordingly, while we affirm the
examiner’s holding of unpatentability under section 103 in
view of combined prior art teachings including McKay (‘749)
and Bradley, appellant also may treat this decision as a NEW
GROUND OF REJECTION UNDER 37 CFR
§ 1.196(b).
More specifically, we affirm the examiner’s rejection of
Claims 5 to 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of all
combinations of prior art including McKay (‘749) and Bradley.
We reverse the examiner’s rejection of Claims 5 to 7 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 in view of all combinations of prior art
including McKay (‘363). Claims 5 to 7 are directed to
oriented polyamide monofilament. McKay (‘749) teaches
oriented polyamide monofilament. McKay (‘363) teaches
oriented polyester monofilament. Since Bradley’s teaching is
cumulative of Aharoni’s teaching relative to the subject
matter claimed, we only need consider Bradley’s teaching.
- 20 -
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007