Appeal No. 2005-0288 Page 9
Application No. 10/075,786
impermissible hindsight, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined
the teachings of Andrieu and Holland so as to arrive at the claimed invention. Lastly,
the appellants urge that Andrieu's invention is directed to a low cost fabric which
teaches away from the invention which utilizes a costly high performance yarn.
In our view, the combined teachings of Andrieu and Holland would have made it
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to
have modified the protective cover of Andrieu so as to utilize Spectra® fibers as set forth
in the rejection under appeal. We find the appellants' arguments unpersuasive for the
following reasons.
First, while Andrieu's cover is not formed from a high performance yarn4, the
teachings of Holland are sufficient to have made it obvious at the time the invention was
made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the protective cover of
Andrieu so as to utilize Spectra® fibers. In this regard, we note the rejection is under
35 U.S.C. § 103 not 35 U.S.C. § 102.
4The appellants' specification (p. 2) teaches that a high- strength (high
performance) yarn has a tensile modulus equal to or greater than 150 grams/denier and
a tenacity equal to or greater than 7 grams/denier.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007