Appeal No. 2005-0242
Application No. 09/224,980
OPINION
We refer to pages 3-7 of the answer regarding the
examiner’s position in connection with each of the rejections of
claims 15-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of
Gretzinger and Stumpf.
The issue in this case is whether the combination of
Gretzinger and Stumpf make obvious the subject matter recited in
appellants’ claim 15, which is reproduced below:
15. A textile comprising:
a set of first yarns interwoven with a set of
second yarns, wherein:
said first yarns comprising monofilament
elastomeric UV stabilized yarn; and
said second yarns comprising textured polyester
and elastomeric UV stabilized yarns.
Figure 36 of Stumpf shows first yarns comprising
monofilament elastomeric yarn 374, and second yarns comprising
(1) texturized yarn of polyester (376A & B) and (2) elastomeric
monofilament 378.
As recognized by the examiner on page 6 of the answer,
Stumpf fails to teach that the elastomeric material are UV
stabilized.
However, the examiner relies upon Gretzinger for teaching
that it is customary to utilize UV stabilizers in elastomeric
filaments. See col. 8 lines 39-44 of Gretzinger.
On pages 3-8 of the brief, appellants argue that the
combination of Stumpf and Gretzinger is improper because there
is no reasonable basis for concluding that Stumpf would have
been considered by one skilled in the art of automotive
upholstery fabric working, on the pertinent problem of
minimizing UV degradation of the fabric. Appellants also argue
that Stumpf is not within the field of appellants’ invention
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007