Appeal No. 2006-1390
Application No. 10/291,206
The examiner also concludes that while the percent of open area in the leno weave
structure of Stumpf is not specifically disclosed, it would have been obvious to optimize the open
area in the leno weave structure to facilitate aeration throughout the fabric while keeping the
yarns close enough to provide sufficient support and comfort to the user (Answer, page 4).
On page 5, the examiner states that a heat set leno weave structure would inherently
provide resistance to unraveling due to the interlocking structure of the yarns. The examiner also
concludes that it would have been obvious to choose a weft yarn with a larger diameter than the
warp yarn so that the properties of the weft yarns dominate the texture, appearance, and hand of
the overall woven fabric since the weft yarns are made from softer and more aesthetically
pleasing yarns (Answer, page 5).
Beginning on page 3 of the Brief, appellants argue that Dailey cannot be properly
combined with Stumpf in support of a prima facie case of obviousness. Appellants argue that
Stumpf fails to provide a teaching that would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to
utilize the monofilament disclosed in Dailey in the seating structure disclosed in Stumpf (Brief,
page 3). Appellants argue that the seating structure in Stumpf is intended for use as an office
chair which would not be subjected to the rigorous ultraviolet radiation exposure of the
monofilament described in Dailey. Appellants assert that therefore one of ordinary skill in the
art would not have been motivated to look to the art relating to UV resistant monofilaments such
as in Dailey (Brief, pages 3 through 4).
Appellants also argue that Dailey does not disclose that the monofilament can be used in a
leno weave configuration. Appellants argue that Dailey does not teach the use of a mono or
heterofilament to be used as a locking type filament as recited in claim 1. Appellants argue that
this deficiency is not overcome by Stumpf. Appellants argue that Stumpf does disclose a leno
weave, but Stumpf does not disclose that the monofilaments are bicomponent sheath/core
elastomeric yarns, and that the intersections of the monofilament yarns are bonded together via a
melted portion of the monofilament (Brief, page 4).
We are not convinced by appellants’ arguments for the following reasons.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007