Appeal No. 2003-0645 9
Application No. 09/245,625
possible, encompasses the loaded multifilament structure of Hill.
As discussed above, “imbibed” means “absorbed.” In turn, “absorb”
means “to take in through or as if through pores or
interstices:soak in or up.”6 Therefore the taking in of active
ingredient into the interstitial spaces of the multifilament
structure of Hill would have reasonably been considered as
“imbibed” into the fiber.
Appellants argue that there is no evidence of record to
support the examiner’s assertion that “imbibing” is equivalent to
coating (Reply Brief, page 4). This argument is not well taken
since the examiner is not asserting that imbibing is equivalent to
coating in any situation but the “imbibing” of active ingredient
into the interstitial spaces of Hill is equivalent to coating each
of the many individual strands (Answer, page 4).
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the Answer,
we determine that the examiner has established a prima facie case
of obviousness in view of the evidence. Appellants argue that,
with respect to the claims of Groups V and VI, unexpected results
have been shown (Brief, pages 13-15; Reply Brief, pages 7-9).
Accordingly, we begin anew and review the evidence for and against
6 See Webster’s II, New Riverside University Dictionary, pp. 68-69, The
Riverside Publishing Co., 1984 (a copy is attached to this decision).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007