Appeal No. 1997-0958
Application 08/300,669
reasonable degree of precision and particularity, and the
examiner provides no other argument in support of the
rejection. Moreover, appellants define “dry spinning” and
“wet spinning” (supplemental brief filed March 7, 1996), and
the examiner does not challenge these definitions.
For the above reasons, we conclude that the examiner has
not set forth a prima facie case of indefiniteness. We
therefore reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Chandler, which appears to be the applied reference which
is closest to appellants’ claimed invention, discloses adding
a mixture of polyamylsiloxane and polydimethylsiloxane to a
spinning solution for making spandex fibers (col. 3, lines 38-
42 and 60-64). The only applied reference which discloses
ethoxylated polydimethylsiloxane is Schmalz, and in this
reference, the ethoxylated polydimethylsiloxane is applied to
the surfaces of polyolefin fibers to render them hydrophilic
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007