Appeal No. 2005-2556
Application No. 10/142,512
including round or circular. Appellants also argue that Yamada
teaches away from the instant invention because there is no
teaching by Yamada regarding the beneficial use of flat yarns
when compared with round yarns. On page 7 of the brief,
appellants argue that Yamada teaches away because of the
teaching that round and flat yarns are interchangeable.3
Again, we are not convinced by such arguments concerning
Yamada, for the reasons discussed supra, and, hence, for the
same reasons, we also affirm this rejection. We add that while
Yamada discloses flat yarns or round yarns, such does not change
appellants’ burden of showing that when using flat yarns,
Yamada’s invention does not reduce a volume of air in the
forming fabric and improve surface roughness.
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 3, 4, 11, and 12 as
being obvious over appellants’ admitted prior art in view
of Yamada and further in view of De Cauwer and Thornton
Beginning on page 7 of the brief, appellants argue that De
Cauwer and Thornton do not cure the deficiencies of Yamada.
However, for the reasons discussed supra, we find no
failings in Yamada. Therefore, we affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 3, 4, 11, and 12.
IV. Conclusion
Each of the rejections is affirmed.
under § 103, for ‘anticipation is the epitome of obviousness,’ In re
Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 215 USPQ 569 (CCPA 1982).”
3 We note that appellants do not dispute the findings by the examiner
regarding the admitted prior art made on page 6 of the answer.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007