Appeal No. 2005-2678
Application 09/992,110
Didwania.3 The examiner finds that Didwania would have disclosed the claimed method to one
of ordinary skill in the art but for the application thereof to latex bonded cellulosic material, and
determines that one of ordinary skill in this art would have been motivated to apply the Didwania
method to the bonded woven and nonwoven synthetic fiber containing fabric because Milding
teaches at page 3, ll. 10-29, that such materials can be broken down to recycle fibers which
comprise synthetic fiber (supplemental answer, page 3). Appellants submits, with respect to
appealed claim 1, that there is no suggestion in Didwania to extend the use of the method therein
beyond latex bonded cellulosic material to include the bonded woven and nonwoven synthetic
fiber containing fabric which Milding recycles with mechanical shredding that contains no
liquid, and similarly, that there is no evidence that one of ordinary skill in this art working with
the fabric recycled by Milding would consider using the method of Didwania for that purpose
(amended brief, e.g., pages 6-7; reply brief, e.g., unnumbered pages 1-2).
We agree with appellants. We find no evidence that, without more, one of ordinary skill
in this art would have equated the shredding of bonded woven and nonwoven synthetic fiber
containing fabric in the apparently dry mechanical shredding method of Milding with shredding
latex bonded cellulosic material in the liquid mechanical defiberization method of Didwania
based alone on the desire to recycle waste material, which is the basis for the examiner’s
rejection. Cf. In re Siebentritt, 372 F.2d 566, 567-68, 152 USPQ 618, 619 (CCPA 1967)
(express suggestion to interchange methods which achieve the same or similar results is not
necessary to establish obviousness). Indeed, we find no disclosure in Milding of any latex
bonded paper waste or materials which include latex bonded cellulosic materials.
With respect to appealed independent product-by-process claim 17, which differs from
appealed product-by process claim 16, dependent on appealed claim 1, in the limitation that the
claimed synthetic fiber and fiber-like materials comprise “at least one thread element composed
of synthetic material having at least one irregular distortion generated by hydraulic fracture of
2 We consider the amended brief filed October 29, 2004.
3 It is well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the
inferences one of ordinary skill in this art would have reasonably been expected to draw
therefrom, see In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782-83 (Fed. Cir.
1992); In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968), presuming skill on
the part of this person. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007