Appeal No. 1998-0240
Application 08/522,479
The examiner does not appear to provide any reasoning as to why one skilled in the art would be
unable to make and/or use the invention recited in the claims. Furthermore, appellant’s specification
states that “the two component polymers may have similar melting points if their crystallization rates are
measurably different.” (Specification, page 5). As the specification describes the two component
polymers as having similar melting points or that the fast solidifying polymer may have a melting point
higher than the slower solidifying component, the claims are commensurate in scope with the subject
matter described in the specification such that one skilled in the art could make and/or use the claimed
invention.
3. The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Pike in view of Connor
The examiner has rejected claims 5 and 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Pike in view of
Connor. Briefly, the examiner relies upon Pike as teaching a helically crimped multicomponent
conjugate fiber having a first component which can be polypropylene and a second component which
can be polyethylene. The examiner, however, finds that Pike is silent as to the presence of nucleating
agents. Connor is relied upon as teaching that it is well known in the art to incorporate nucleating
agents in amounts ranging from 0.1 to 0.3% into thermoplastic polymers to improve their bonding.
From this evidence, the examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007