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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007