Ex parte EICKEN et al. - Page 8

              Appeal No. 1997-3589                                                                                            
              Application No. 08/117,013                                                                                      

              compound and a polycarboxylic acid.  The polyhydroxy compound has a molecular weight of not less                

              than 1,000 and is prepared by an addition of polymerization of ethylene oxide or alkylene oxide.                

              (Fujita, col. 1, lines 30-43).  The glass fiber sizing agent provides superior film forming ability and gives   

              a film even under highly humid conditions to prevent abrasion between filaments.  (Fujita, col. 1, lines        

              25-30).   In particular, the sizing agent is excellent in binder effect, fluff lay-down effect during weaving,  

              lubricity, antistatic activity and the like.  (Fujita, col. 2, lines 43-49, emphasis added).  As recognized     

              by the examiner, Fujita does not teach the presence of appellants' block B) hydrophobic diol.                   

                                                    Rejections over Yanai                                                     

                      The examiner contends that Yanai anticipates claims 11, 12 and 16-18 and renders obvious                

              claims 13-15.  According to the examiner, when choices are limited, such as for the hydrophobic                 

              portion of Yanai, the reference teaches the invention.  Additionally, the examiner asserts that the claim       

              preamble is directed to the intended use of the polyester and is given little patentable weight.                

                      At the outset, it is recognized that anticipation is established only if each and every element of a    

              properly construed claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art              

              reference.  PPG Indus., Inc. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 75 F.3d 1558, 1566, 37 USPQ2d 1496                       

              (Fed. Cir. 1995).  Furthermore, to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the prior art reference         

                                                           Page 8                                                             

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007