Appeal No. 2005-0288 Page 15
Application No. 10/075,786
In the rejection of claim 40, the examiner ascertained (answer, pp. 9-10) that
Ratigan does not disclose the protective cover being made from high performance
yarns having a tensile modulus equal to or greater than 150 grams/denier and a tenacity
equal to or greater than 7 grams/denier, wherein the yarns are cut resistant. The
examiner then determined (answer, p. 10) that it would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the
protective cover of Ratigan (which is made of polyester fibers) to comprise Spectra®
fibers and the fabric parameters of the protective fabric as taught by Holland because
Holland teaches that such a fabric by made of commercially available Spectra® fibers
and having the specified parameters, overcomes the disadvantages of polyester fabric
covers, has minimal weight, increased abrasion resistance, tear strength, cut and stab
resistance, and is compatible with the environment in which the cover is used.
The appellants argue that claim 40 is not suggested by the teachings of Ratigan
and Holland for the following reasons. First, Ratigan's protective cover is not formed
from a high performance yarn. Second, Holland is directed to a cargo curtain, not a
protective sleeve, and as such is non-analogous. Third, there is no motivation, absent
the use of impermissible hindsight, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have
combined the teachings of Ratigan and Holland so as to arrive at the claimed invention.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007