Appeal No. 95-2622
Application 08/125,524
We find that Bradley broadly describes production of
oriented polyamide filaments of a kind, size and configuration
encompassed by appellant’s Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7.
Moreover, we find Bradley’s teaching as pertinent, if not more
pertinent, to the subject matter appellant claims than McKay’s
disclosures. Bradley describes oriented polyamide filaments
of a kind, size and configuration encompassed by appellant’s
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7. Moreover, we conclude that oriented
polyamide monofilament of a kind, size, and configuration
indicated in appellant’s Claims 1-7 would have been prima
facie obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art in
view of the combined teachings of McKay (‘749) and Bradley.
Furthermore, we conclude that an oriented polyester
monofilament of a kind, size, and configuration indicated in
appellant’s Claims 1-4 and 8-10 would have been prima facie
obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art in view of
the combined teachings of McKay (‘363) and Bradley.
We have discussed appellant’s response to the teachings
of McKay. Appellant’s remarks with regard to Bradley’s
disclosure are even less convincing. Appellant argues (Br.,
p. 7, second full para.):
Bradley et al. describes a spinneret assembly. The
- 23 -
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007