Appeal No. 2003-0060
Application 09/236,718
97 F.3d 1427, 1430, 40 USPQ2d 1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re
Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir.
1992); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991).
As discussed above, Nakamura’s teaching that incompatible polymer
combinations “such as” polyolefin-polyester are suitable, and
Pike’s teaching that both polyolefin-polyester and polyamide-
polyester provide a fabric having the properties and utility
desired by Nakamura, would have fairly suggested, to one of
ordinary skill in the art, use of polyamide-polyester as one of
Nakamura’s incompatible polymer combinations.
The appellants argue that “[t]he process of the invention
involves an extraneous mechanical agitation” (brief, page 6),
whereas “[t]he disclosure of Pike clarifies that its conjugate
fibers are to be split without any mechanical agitation.” Id.
The appellants’ claimed invention, however, is a nonwoven fabric,
not a process. In their argument (brief, pages 5-7) the
appellants have not explained why the appellants’ fiber splitting
method would cause their claimed nonwoven fabric to be unobvious
over the nonwoven fabrics obtained according to the combined
teachings of Nakamura and Pike. Moreover, the mechanical
agitation referred to by the appellants is impact of a high
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007