Appeal No. 2003-0625 Page 5
Application No. 09/954,729
The appellant argues that Billingsley is concerned with industrial laundering
durability, whereas Maeda does not discuss laundering durability (brief, page 7).
Actually, Maeda teaches that the reactive dye provides improved washing
fastness (col. 6, lines 29-31). Maeda does not disclose industrial laundering, but the
teaching that use of the reactive dye improves washing fastness reasonably appears to
pertain to any type of laundering. Regardless, although Billingsley indicates that
garments such as firemen’s jackets and construction workers’ safety vests to which his
retroreflective articles are applied must withstand industrial laundering conditions (col.
1, lines 36-45), Billingsley also teaches that the retroreflective articles can be used on
any launderable clothing articles including shirts, sweaters, suits and one-piece body
garments (col. 7, lines 3-12). Thus, Billingsley’s retroreflective articles are not limited to
retroreflective articles which are applied to clothing articles that are industrially
laundered.
The appellant argues that there is no evidence that Maeda’s dye would be
suitable for making a retroreflective article (brief, page 7). The appellant argues, in
reliance upon an affidavit by Billingsley (filed February 20, 2002, paper no. 6), that the
effect of the dye on optical element retention, reflectivity and light transmission is
unknown (reply brief, pages 2-3). These arguments are not persuasive because
Billingsley’s teaching that the intermediate layer can contain dyes (col. 5, lines 31-33)
would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007