Appeal No. 96-0892 Application No. 08/264,870 fiber comprising a delustrant and an optical brightener, wherein said fiber is characterized by a brightness value of at least about 79. The examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of obviousness: Mathes et al. (Mathes) 4,307,152 Dec. 22, 1981 Hähnke et al. (Hähnke) 4,607,071 Aug. 19, 1986 As is readily apparent from illustrative claim 1, appellants' claimed invention is directed to an acrylonitrile polymer comprising a delustrant and an optical brightener. The delustrant can be titanium dioxide while the optical brightener can be a benzimidazole or derivative thereof. The claimed fiber has a brightness value of at least about 79. According to appellants, "[t]he fibers of the present invention surprisingly achieve optical characteristics similar to cotton and superior to prior art synthetic fibers without application of the undesirable bleaching steps described above" (page 2 of Brief). Appealed claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hähnke in view of Mathes. Upon careful consideration of the opposing arguments presented on appeal, we concur with appellants that the applied prior art fails to establish a prima facie case of -2-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007