Appeal No. 2003-0060
Application 09/236,718
split during carding, which is undesirable (brief, pages 3-4).2
This argument is not well taken because it is limited to one
reference when the rejection is based on a combination of
references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426, 208 USPQ 871,
882 (CCPA 1981); In re Young, 403 F.2d 754, 757-58, 159 USPQ 725,
728 (CCPA 1968). As discussed above, Pike would have fairly
suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, using polyamide-
polyester as an alternative to the polyolefin-polyester
exemplified by Nakamura. If anything, the appellants’ argument
provides a reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been led by the applied references to use an alternative to
Nakamura’s exemplified polyolefin-polyester combination.
The appellants argue that Nakamura’s polyolefin-polyester
fibers generate a relatively high degree of static electricity
which causes the fibers to converge into lumps rather than open
during the carding process and, therefore, sink toward the
peripheral surface of the cylinder of the carding machine,
resulting in a product which may have poor appearance (brief,
page 4; reply brief, page 3). The appellants, however, provide
2 This argument has support in the appellants’ specification
(pages 2-3).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007