Appeal No. 1997-0529 Page 10
Application No. 08/573,884
whether the examiner has met his burden of proof by advancing
acceptable reasoning inconsistent with enablement.
The examiner states in both the final rejection and the
answer (p. 3) that
[t]he broadest claims are directed to a fabric
comprising a plurality of woven fabric layers wherein
each fabric layer comprises high tenacity continuous
filaments in the warp and weft coated with a material
which increases the coefficient of friction of the
continuous filaments. Only two specific coating
materials, polypyrrole and polyaniline, are disclosed in
the specification. The applicant has provided no
guidance to one of ordinary skill in the art as to
suitable coatings other than those specified above.
Undue experimentation would be necessary if appellant's
scope of invention were broadened beyond a fabric
comprising high tenacity filaments coated with
polypyrrole or polyaniline coatings.
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 2-3) that the rejection
is clearly erroneous since
the claims are restricted to a polymeric film coated on
the warp and weft yarns to provide a coated filament
having a coefficient of friction higher than that of the
uncoated filaments. To support this applicant has cited
the two examples of coating materials noted by the
Examiner and certainly are entitled to the broader
recitation of "polymeric materials" coated on the
filaments to increase the coefficient of friction. No
undue experimentation would be required to determine
other coatings within the scope of the claims and
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007