Appeal No. 2006-1077
Application No.10/034,907
Although the units of mass and length are not specified for the yarn number, the
fabric is described in the specification using the English system of measurement.
Accordingly, we are confident that one of ordinary skill in the art would be familiar with
the units involved in arriving at a yarn number of 24 for an acrylonitrile fiber.
The rejection is reversed.
Prior Art Rejections
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Edwards in
view of Wade and further in view of Hughes. The remaining claims are rejected as
unpatentable in view of the same combination of references and further in view of
various secondary references. For the reasons discussed below, we find that the examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 11. We
further find that the additional references relied upon in the rejections of the remaining
claims fail to cure the deficiences in the combined teachings of Edwards, Wade and
Hughes. Therefore, the examiner has also failed to show that claims 12-19 are
unpatentable over the cited prior art.
The examiner relies on Edwards for a disclosure of a porous woven fabric with
increased ultraviolet blocking. The examiner notes that Edwards uses standard acrylic
fibers, but does not specifically mention acrylonitrile fibers in the woven material. The
examiner relies on Wade for a teaching of fibers comprising up to 98% acrylonitrile. The
examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
have used Wade’s acrylonitrile fibers in the textile taught by Edwards in order to provide
a woven material with improved UV stability as taught by Wade. The examiner relies on
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007