Appeal No. 1998-0113
Application No. 08/437,517
teaches against use of special spinnerettes (col. 1, ll. 40-
41) while Minami uses a special spinnerette in combination
with certain drying tensions (page 5, last paragraph; page 6,
5th paragraph; page 7, second full paragraph; and the
Comparison Examples on page 10). Therefore, even if the
references were combined, the examiner has not explained how
the aspect ratios desired by Minami could have been produced
by the method disclosed by Turbak. Additionally, if the
references were combined as proposed by the examiner to employ
the aspect ratio of Minami in the fibers of Turbak, the
claimed subject matter would not be suggested because the
fibers of Turbak are not viscose fibers as claimed.
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the
Brief, we determine that the examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness in view of this reference
evidence. Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection of the claims
on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of Turbak
and Minami is reversed.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007