Appeal No. 2006-1077
Application No.10/034,907
In responding to appellants’ arguments, the examiner points out that the claims do
not preclude either UV blocking particles or binding agent. The claims do, however,
require that the fabric itself, i.e. sans particles, be capable of blocking UV light. See
Specification, p. 6 (“A fabric having the specifications set forth hereinabove has been
indicated to be capable of blocking ultraviolet (UV) light.”) In contrast, Edwards is
directed to a fabric wherein ultraviolet blocking is provided by particles, attached by
means of a binding agent, within interstitial spaces in the fabric, on a surface of the
fabric, or incorporated into the body of the fabric. Edwards, col. 2, ll. 52-60. In the
Background section of the patent, Edwards acknowledges that tightly woven fabrics will
reduce the transmission of UV radiation. Col. 1, ll. 56-57. However, Edwards
specifically states that:
The UV blocking property of the fabric of the present invention
arises from the deflection, reflection, absorption and/or scattering
of ultraviolet rays having wave-lengths between 280 and 400 nm
by the UV blocking particles incorporated into the fabric.
Col. 3, 11. 28-32.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007