Appeal No. 2005-2556
Application No. 10/142,512
The examiner also relies upon appellants’ admitted prior
art as described on pages 1 and 2 of the specification.
Claims 1, 2, and 5-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by, or in the alternative under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Yamada.
Claims 1, 2, and 5-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over appellants’ admitted prior art in
view of Yamada.
Claims 3, 4, 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being obvious over appellants’ admitted prior art in view of
Yamada and further in view of De Cauwer and Thornton.
Appellants arguments throughout the brief and reply brief
focus on the subject matter of claims 1 (apparatus claim) and 9
(method claim). We therefore limit our consideration to these
claims in this appeal. See 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(September
2004); formerly 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2003). Also see Ex parte
Schier, 21 USPQ2d 1016, 1018 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1991).
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the appellants’ brief and reply
brief, the examiner’s answer, and the evidence of record. This
review has led us to the following determinations.
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)/103(a) rejection of claims 1, 2,
5-10 over Yamada
The examiner’s position for this rejection is set forth on
pages 4-6 of the answer.
Beginning on page 6 of the brief, appellants argue that
Yamada does not disclose or suggest that flat yarns can reduce a
volume of air in the forming fabric and improve surface
roughness. Beginning on page 2 of the reply brief, appellants
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007