Ex Parte Sutherland et al - Page 6


                  Appeal No. 2006-1077                                                                                          
                  Application No.10/034,907                                                                                     

                  Hughes for a teaching that the ratio of apertures to thread is a result effective variable that               
                  increases breathability and decreases UV protection with increasing aperture size.                            
                          Appellants dispute the examiner’s finding that Edwards teaches a fabric with both                     
                  openings and light blocking capability, arguing:                                                              
                                 [a]lthough Edwards et al. suggests that the fabric is porous,                                  
                                 Edwards et al. fills the pores or spaces of the fabric with UV                                 
                                 blocking particles and thus the fabric of Edwards et al. loses the                             
                                 advantages of light transmissivity, visual perception therethrough                             
                                 and breatheability provided by Appellants’ claimed articles.                                   
                  Appeal Brief, p. 8.  Appellants concede that Wade discloses an acrylic fiber polymer                          
                  precursor for use in outdoor fabric applications. Appeal Brief, p. 7.  However, appellants                    
                  urge that Wade fails to disclose or suggest fabrics having both light transmissivity and                      
                  UV light blocking characteristics as required by claim 11.  Appeal Brief, p. 7.  Appellants                   
                  argue that Hughes                                                                                             
                                 fails to suggest the claimed range of opening sizes in the fabric,                             
                                 the arrangement of groups of threads between openings or the                                   
                                 ability to provide human visual perception through a window                                    
                                 covering panel while blocking Category A and Category B UV                                     
                                 radiation within the ranges or limits required by Claim 11.                                    
                  Appeal Brief, p. 7.  Thus, appellants maintain that even if Edwards were combined with                        
                  the secondary references, the present invention would not result.                                             
                          The examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of                           
                  obviousness.  In re Kumar, 418 F.3d 1361, 1366, 76 USPQ2d 1048, 1050 (Fed. Cir.                               
                  2005).  To support a rejection on obviousness grounds, the examiner must provide a                            
                  detailed analysis of the prior art and reasons why one of ordinary skill in the art would                     
                  have possessed the knowledge and motivation to make the claimed invention.  See In re                         
                  Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006).   In this case, the                           

                                                               6                                                                



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007