Appeal No. 1997-3589
Application No. 08/117,013
(1) Claims 11, 12, 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Yanai, U.S. Patent No. 4,725,500.
(2) Claims 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yanai,
U.S. Patent No. 4,725,500.
(3) Claims 19-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yanai,
U.S. Patent No. 4,725,500 in view of Fujita, U.S. Patent No. 4,968,776.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the appellant
regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 19, mailed
February 25, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the brief
(Paper No. 18, filed December 19, 1996) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
Opinion
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by appellants and the examiner
and agree with appellants that the aforementioned rejections are not well founded. Accordingly, we
reverse these rejections.
As discussed in detail below, the prior art fails to teach or suggest appellants' claimed spin finish
composition containing a lubricant. Specifically, the claim as properly construed requires a lubricant
component that provides filaments with a necessary slip. As the prior art fails to teach or suggest such
Page 3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007