Appeal No. 2006-1003
Application 10/046,535
The appellants argue that Hoyt discloses that a sulphonated
nylon polymer is necessary to obtain reduced staining (brief,
page 8). Neither Lin nor the appellants limits the sheath to
nonsulfonated nylon polymers. Moreover, Hoyt teaches that low
amine end group content reduces the staining of nonsulfonated
polyamides (table 1, examples 1-7).
The appellants, therefore, have not convinced us of
reversible error in the examiner’s rejection over Lin in view of
Hoyt and Segraves.
DECISION
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1, 4 and 6-8
over Segraves in view of Lin is reversed. The rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 2 over Segraves in view of Lin and
either Anton or Litjen, claims 1, 2, 4 and 6-8 over Anton in view
of Lin, claims 1, 4 and 6-8 over Lin in view of Hoyt and
Segraves, and claim 2 over Lin in view of Hoyt, Segraves and
either Anton or Litjen, are affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007