Appeal No. 2005-2556
Application No. 10/142,512
when used as a structural material for a woven fabric for
industrial use, either a circular or elliptical (flat) shape is
desireable.” See paragprah [0025] of Yamada. Hence,
appellants’ assertion that “no such identity can be found” on
page 5 of the reply brief skews this specific teaching of
Yamada. That is, it is a preferred embodiment that flat
filaments be used in a woven construction. There is no picking
and choosing from a myriad of shapes. Rather, a flat shape is
clearly described as one embodiment. With regard to the
particular utility, again, the list provided in Yamada is not so
exhaustive that picking and choosing would result. See
paragraph 1 and 29 of Yamada, for example.
In view of the above, we affirm the anticipation rejection,
and also affirm the obviousness rejection for the reasons set
forth in the answer and in view of the teachings of Yamada
regarding a net conveyor use thereof for processing fabric by
the thermal bonding method. Also, we note that anticipation is
the epitome of obviousness.2
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, and 5-10 as
being obvious over appellants’ admitted prior art in view
of Yamada
Beginning on page 6 of the brief, appellants again argue
that Yamada merely provides a laundry list of yarn shapes
2 This statement that “anticipation is the epitome of obviousness” is
made in the same context set forth in the case of In re Structural
Rubber Prods. Co. v. Park Rubber Co., 749 F.2d 707, 716, 223 USPQ
1264, 1271 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In this case, the Court referred to the
statement that “[t]hough it is never necessary to so hold, a
disclosure that anticipates under § 102 also renders the claim invalid
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007