Appeal No. 2026-0818
Application No. 10/175,064
and 62-65; col. 12, lines 7-10). Two of Jenkins’ dyes (Acid
Blue 277 and Acid Red 361, col. 6, lines 14 and 18) are among the
appellants’ acid dyes (specification, page 16, lines 4-5).
Jenkins does not disclose that nylon 6,12 is cationic
dyeable. However, Jenkins teaches that “[a]n affinity for
cationic dyes is usually imparted by the incorporation of a
monomer containing sulfonic acid groups. Thus one such
modification of a polyamide fiber is obtained by adding a certain
amount of sulphoisophthalic acid prior to polymerization”
(col. 2, lines 50-54). Jenkins, therefore, would have fairly2
suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, incorporating a
monomer containing sulfonic acid groups into Lin’s nylon 6,12
sheath polymer to render the nylon 6,12 cationic dyeable, and
dyeing the nylon 6,12 sheath with one of Jenkins’ acid dyes such
as Acid Blue 277 or Acid Red 361, to produce a dyed sheath having
the desirable properties disclosed by Jenkins, i.e., improved
stain resistance, ozone resistance and lightfastness. 3
Consequently, the appellants’ claimed carpet would have been
prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
2The appellants’ sheath polymer may a sulfonated polyamide
(specification, page 10, lines 11-12).
3There is no dispute as to whether the dyed fibers would have the
ozone fading resistance recited in the appellants’ claim 41.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007