Appeal No. 1997-0144
Application No. 08/424,223
materials having known properties depending upon the
cost and properties desired in the final product
produced from the yarn since VECTRAN M is less
expensive than VECTRAN HS.
On page 7 of the answer, the examiner urges that Robins
teaches the interchangeability of VECTRAN liquid crystal fiber
for KEVLAR fibers in cut-resistant yarns and that it would,
accordingly, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to exchange the KEVLAR in both the core and first layer in
Bettcher for VECTRAN liquid crystal polymer fibers in view of
Robins. In addressing the limitation in the claims on appeal
regarding the recited liquid crystal polymer fiber being one
"having a tenacity of no more than 10 grams per denier," the
examiner urges (answer, page 8) that Robins "teaches the use of
both high and low tenacity fibers in the cut-resistant yarn and
this teaching would be used to replace the KEVLAR in Bettcher."
Like appellant (brief, pages 6-11), absent knowledge of
appellant's invention, we see nothing in Bettcher and Robins
which would have suggested their combination in the manner urged
by the examiner. In our opinion, the examiner has used
impermissible hindsight derived from appellant's own teachings to
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007