Appeal No. 96-3543
Application No. 08/153,623
we think not. This being the case, we will not sustain the
rejection of independent claims 1 and 9 or, it follows, of
dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 7 and 10.
Dependent claims 3, 6, 11 and 12 stand rejected as being
unpatentable over the references cited against claims 1 and 9,
taken further with Lockney, which is added for its teaching of
forming a net of polypropylene. Be that as it may, Lockney
does not alleviate the problem discussed above with regard to
the color relationship between certain of the net members that
is established in the independent claims, and therefore we
also will not sustain the rejection of claims 3, 6, 11 and 12.
Independent claim 16 also stands rejected on the basis of
Dilbey, Gullen and Lockney. As was the case with claim 1,
this claim also requires that at least one of the weft and
warp members be of a different color, so as to display a
diagonally directed path along the net relative to the other
warp and weft members. As we explained above, it is our view
that the combined teachings of these references fail to render
this feature obvious and therefore, as was the case above,
fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007