Appeal No. 95-4450
Application No. 07/949,676
that we cannot sustain the examiner’s § 102 rejection of
claims 23, 31, and dependent claims 25 and 33 as being
anticipated by Llenado.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Llenado
We, likewise, cannot sustain the examiner’s alternative
rejection of claims 23, 25, 31 and 33 and separately stated
rejection of claims 24, 26-30, 32, 35 and 36 each under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Llenado.
In each of these rejections, the examiner additionally
relies on Example XXII of Llenado and manipulations of
selected portions of the general disclosure of the patent in
attempting to show that the claimed process and product
textile material would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art. However, we agree with appellants (brief,
page 7) that the motivation relied upon by the examiner in
selectively using bits and pieces of the Llenado patent
disclosure in an attempt to arrive at appellants’ claimed
invention appears to have come from the disclosure of
appellants’ method in his specification rather than from the
prior art. In this regard, we do not subscribe to the
examiner’s interpretation of Example XXII of Llenado as
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007