Appeal No. 2005-0288 Page 12
Application No. 10/075,786
does not teach or suggest that high performance yarns would not work in a protective
sleeve. Instead, Andrieu teaches that the woven fabric sleeve material is comprised of
monofilament warps which are formed of polyester or other suitable material from the
family of materials commonly referred to as engineered plastics. As such, it is our
view that Andrieu suggests utilizing engineered plastics to form the woven fabric sleeve.
Holland clearly teaches the benefits of a fabric which utilizes an engineered plastic high
performance yarn (i.e., Spectra® fibers).
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 2 to 9 and 27 to 35 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is also affirmed since the appellants have not argued separately the patentability
of any particular claim apart from the others, thus allowing claims 2 to 9 and 27 to 35 to
fall with claim 1 (see In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir.
1991); and In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978)).
Rejection 2
We sustain the rejection of claim 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ratigan in view of Holland.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007