Appeal No. 2005-1487
Application No. 10/383,781
Art” are made, e.g., what dyeing temperatures, times, dye/liquor
ratios, and agitation are used. Additionally, we note that
appellant preferably uses a dye-assistant (an aryl ester) that is
not employed as a dye-assistant as taught by Lunsford
(specification, page 7; Lunsford, col. 3, ll. 18-30). Appellant
does not disclose what, if any, dye-assistants are used in the
processes of Table I. Finally, appellant does not specify the
type of Nomex fiber used in Table I, and the type of fiber can
have an effect on the results (see the specification, page 5; and
Lunsford, col. 4, ll. 9-25).
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
determine the examiner has established a prima facie case of
anticipation in view of the reference evidence which has not been
adequately rebutted by appellant’s arguments and evidence.
Therefore we affirm the examiner’s rejection of claim 9, and
claim 10 which stands or falls with claim 9, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) over Lunsford.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007