Ex parte EICKEN et al. - Page 3




              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