Yet, as stated in the specification, the carbon yarn product is flexed after pre-
carbonizing to break the fiber-to-fiber bonds between the yarn filaments. See
specification, page 1, lines 7-9, and page 2, lines 21-24. Moreover, as explained in
the specification, the present invention employs conventionally sized, raw, non-
carbonized, non-scoured yarn and subjects the yarn to a precarbonization process by
exposing the yarn to elevated temperatures sufficient to cause bonding of the sizing
material. See specification, page 4, lines 9-12. Thereafter, the
On this record, we conclude that the specification provides a reasonable standard
for understanding the metes and bounds of the phrases, “in contact with at least one
other said filament,” and “substantially separated from the sizing material of said at
least one other said filament,” when the claim is read in light of the specification. See
Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc, 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221
USPQ 568, 573-574 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of
the examiner.
The Rejection under Section 103 -- Obviousness
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of the prior art or on any
other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of unpatentability.” See In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In the
case before us, the examiner relies upon three references, in the alternative, to
reject the claimed subject matter and establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
The basic premise of the rejection is that each of the references teaches coating a
flexible yarn of carbon fiber containing a plurality of carbon filaments with a sizing
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007