Appeal No. 1997-2071
Application No. 08/336,529
column 1, lines 39-67) and achieves the same antimicrobial
effect in garments by constructing a two-face fabric using
synthetic yarn which has been treated with an antimicrobial
agent as one face (column 1, line 67-column 2, line 11). We
determine that the examiner has failed to present any
reasoning or evidence of any suggestion, teaching or
motivation in the references to support the proposed
combination, i.e., why would one of ordinary skill in the art
have used the antimicrobial fibers of the garments of Morrison
‘556 or ‘853 in the concrete compositions of Zonsveld or
Goldfein, respectively. The examiner has only pointed to
generalities such as the fiber material, the fiber length, and
the ability of the antimicrobial agent to migrate to the
surface of the fiber in the presence of moisture (Answer,
pages 4-5) but has failed to present any particular reasons or
evidence to support the proposed combination of references.
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness in
view of the reference evidence presented. Accordingly, the
rejections of the claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are
reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007