Appeal No. 2000-0570
Application No. 09/028,943
In rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the
examiner found that "OSBORN et al. teaches that it is known in
the art to solution dye 'Nylon 6,6' fibers impregnated with a
metal based antimicrobial agent" (answer, page 2). Based on
this finding, the examiner concluded that it would have been
obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made
to solution dye the mat and backing of WILSON with
the zinc based antimicrobial agent of OSBORN et al.
in order to produce a dust mat; wherein the
antimicrobial agent is evenly dispersed, thereby
promoting the dye-fastness and permanent retention
of the antimicrobial activity of the mat and backing
[answer, page 2].
The record, however, does not provide any factual support
for the examiner’s apparent position that Osborn’s addition of
an antimicrobial agent to nylon melt constitutes, or would
have been recognized by the artisan as, a solution dyeing
step. The only dyeing step disclosed by Osborn is the blank
dyeing step performed on carpets made of nylon fibers
impregnated with antimicrobial material. This blank dyeing
step clearly does not respond to the unchallenged definition
of "solution dyeing" which has been advanced by the
appellants. Thus, Osborn does not cure Wilson’s failure to
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007