1995-2802
Application No. 07/983,002
adding a substance such as glycerin to the spinning solvent to
enhance the hydrophilic nature of the fibers produced (column
1, lines 48-51; column 2, line 60; column 3, lines 7-12).
However, Reinehr teaches removal of this substance by
post-treatment rinsing (column 2, lines 61-65; column 3, lines
38-41; column 4, lines 16-42).
Additionally, the examiner has not established that the
limitation of claim 1 on appeal regarding the average
transverse cross-sectional area was disclosed, suggested or
taught by the applied prior art. The examiner applies Sato,
Belitsin, Reinehr or Yoshimoto to “teach the particular cross-
section claimed by appellant” since the only requirement to
meet this limitation is “a fiber with the general shape as
that claimed.” (Answer, page 9). However, the examiner has
not presented any evidence or reasoning to support this
conclusion. The examiner states that appellants have not
assigned an upper or lower limit to the “longest dimension”
but fails to explain why this would affect the fiber shape or
the equation that calculates the area Id.). Furthermore, if
mere similarity in fiber shape is sufficient to meet the area
limitation of claim 1 on appeal, the examiner has not
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007