Appeal No. 2006-1022
Application No. 10/084,829
All of the appealed claims1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
or under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Calcaterra.
We refer to the Brief (i.e., the Supplemental Brief filed September 12, 2005) and the
Reply Brief (also filed September 12, 2005) and to the Answer for a complete discussion of the
opposing viewpoints expressed by the appellant and by the examiner concerning the above-noted
rejections.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth in the Answer and below, we will sustain each of these
rejections.
The appellant’s primary and repeatedly advanced argument is expressed on page 8 of the
Supplemental Brief as follows:
Appellant claims a fabric having a monomer grafted to the fabric. Calcaterra
discloses a fabric having a copolymer grafted to the fabric. Since a copolymer
is not the same as a monomer, Calcaterra fails to disclose each and every
limitation claimed by Appellant in independent claims 23 and 34.
Like the examiner, we find that Calcaterra discloses forming an antimicrobial fabric via a
process which includes grafting a monomer onto the fabric (e.g., see lines 13-30 in column 2 and
the paragraph bridging columns 6 and 7). Contrary to the appellant’s afore-quoted argument,
this process step corresponds to the grafting process language of product-by-process claims 23
and 34 (which are the only independent claims on appeal). We appreciate that Calcaterra’s
ultimate product is in the form of a graft copolymer. However, this fact does not render the
1 Notwithstanding a typographical error in listing the rejected claims on page 3 of the Answer, it is apparent that all
claims on appeal have been rejected over the Calcaterra reference (e.g., see page 1 of the Supplemental Brief filed
September 12, 2005).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007