Appeal No. 1998-0294
Application No. 08/318,726
the yarns in the Japanese reference, the above-mentioned
feature of claim 8 also is not taught. A prima facie case of
obviousness therefore has not been established with regard to
the subject matter of claim 8, and we will not sustain the
rejection.
Independent claim 9 recites a structure that is
essentially the same as that of claim 8, and we will not
sustain the rejection for the same reasons as were expressed
above with regard to claim 8.
Independent claim 2 is directed to a hollow yarn body
formed by winding a thin metal wire as a heater on the outer
periphery of a hollow yarn formed by weaving of a fiber of a
heat resistant and hydrophilic material. It stands rejected
as being unpatentable over the Japanese reference in view of
Schladitz and Desage. The comments we made above with regard
to the lack of suggestion to combine the teachings of the
Japanese reference and Schladitz also are applicable here.
They are not cured by further considering Desage, which was
cited for its teaching of using fiber materials for making a
hollow yarn body. A prima facie case of obviousness thus has
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007