Appeal No. 1997-2073 6
Application No. 08/308,639
Having evaluated the claims, specification and applied
prior art, including all of the arguments and evidence
advanced by both the examiner and appellants in support of
their respective
positions, we agree with the examiner that the claimed subject
matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s
§ 103 rejection for essentially those reasons set forth in
both the Board’s decision entered on July 21, 1994, and the
Answer mailed on June 14, 1996. We add the following
primarily for emphasis and completeness.
The previous merits panel determined (pages 3 and 4)
that:
Both [Tanaka] and Price are directed to
self-crimping composite yarns wherein the core
component is arranged so as to occupy a similar
portion of the surface of the filament. We agree
with the examiner that it would have been obvious
to provide [Tanaka's] composite filament in the
configuration of Price's filament. The similar
purpose of the two references in providing self-
crimping filaments, coupled with the similar
extent of providing the core component at the
surface of the filament (i.e.[sic, ,] the core
component provides less than 25% of the filament
surface) would have provided ample suggestion of
the interchangeability of the respective filament
cross-section configurations. In re Winslow, 365
F.2d 1017, 151 USPQ 48 (CCPA 1966); In re Antle,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007