Appeal No. 2000-0698
Application No. 08/960,694
Upon consideration of the applied prior art as a whole, we
must agree with the appellants that Regenstein’s disclosure at
column 4, line 33, et seq. “refers to the separability of the
individual threads (each of which could consist of a plurality
of filaments) from each other, as they are unwound from the
‘package’, and does not have anything at all to do with
splitting the threads into their individual filaments.”
(Substitute appeal brief filed Oct. 20, 1999, paper 19, page 8.)
While Regenstein teaches that “the unravelled fine threads are
readily separable into individual strands..." (column 4, lines
33-35), the only material that is said to be “unravelled” in
Regenstein is the “elastic yarn supply package of the type that
is in the form of a double-face, two thread-system, warp-knit
tape” (column 2, lines 6-9). Thus, we determine that the
descriptive phrase “readily separable” at Regenstein’s column 4,
lines 33-34 must necessarily be a reference to the readily
separable nature of the fine threads as they are being
“unravelled” into individual strands from the yarn supply
package.
For these reasons and those set forth in the substitute
appeal brief, we reverse the examiner’s rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) of appealed claims 9 and 10 as anticipated by
Regenstein.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007