Appeal No. 2006-1003
Application 10/046,535
pages 7-8). Anton’s teachings that amine end groups increase
acid dyeability and that the sheath is to be basic dyeable but
not acid dyeable (col. 2, lines 18-19 and 44-47) would have
fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, reducing
the amine end group content of the sheath as needed to reduce its
acid dyeability.
The appellants argue that Anton suggests that the low amine
end group content of the sheath ensures its dyeability by basic
dyes, whereas the appellants’ sheath is substantially undyed
(brief, page 7). Because Anton’s sheath is basic dyeable rather
than acid dyeable, it remains substantially undyed when exposed
to an acid dye bath. As indicated by Anton’s table at column 5,
lines 29-39, the core becomes orange when exposed to orange acid
dye, whereas the sheath merely takes on a pink tint.
For the above reasons we are not convinced of reversible
error in the examiner’s rejection over Anton in view of Lin.1
1The appellants’ claim 2 requires that the filament is
trilobal, and the appellants do not separately argue that claim
requirement. Consequently, for the reasons given regarding the
rejection over Anton in view of Lin, we are not convinced of
reversible error in the examiner’s rejection of claim 2 over the
combination of Segraves, Lin, and either Anton or Litjen.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007