Appeal No. 2006-1390
Application No. 10/291,206
As pointed out by the examiner, beginning on page 8 of the Answer, the rejection is based
upon Dailey in view of Stumpf, and not Stumpf in view of Dailey. The examiner correctly
points out that the features appellants argue that are not taught by Stumpf (using a sheath/core
bicomponent fiber with UV stabilization in a first direction and heat setting the bicomponent
monofilament to secure the woven fabric), are explicitly taught by Dailey, and do not need to be
taught by Stumpf. We agree, and note that appellants do not argue the combination of applied
references, but attack the references, each individually. We are not persuaded by such
arguments. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). The examiner
relies upon Stumpf for teaching the use of a leno weave structure in a woven seat fabric and that
such fabrics have an open weave structure which provide the desired support and comfort to the
user. The examiner explains that both references are related to seat support structures produced
from elastomeric materials, and Stumpf provides a teaching to use leno weaves as the woven
structure for a seating support fabric. Answer, page 8. The examiner correctly states that
therefore there is sufficient motivation to combine two references and use the leno weave
structure disclosed by Stumpf as the weave structure in the woven fabric disclosed by Dailey.
At the bottom of page 4 and the top of page 5 of the Brief, appellants argue that even if
Dailey and Stumpf could be properly combined, the resulting combination does not suggest all of
the elements recited in the claims. Appellants argue that neither Dailey nor Stumpf suggests a
fabric in which the sheath component of a bicomponent sheath/core elastomeric yarn is melted to
bond the intersections of the warp yarns and the weft yarns. Appellants argue that while Dailey
does disclose a process in which a monofilament containing fabric is heat set so that the
multifilament yarn fiber surfaces adhere to the monofilaments, appellants assert that Dailey does
not disclose that the heat setting process melts the sheath portion of the disclosed monofilaments.
We are not convinced by this argument for the following reasons.
On page 3 of the Answer, the examiner points out that the abstract of Dailey indicates that
the sheath has a melting point lower than the core. The examiner also explains that in column 13
at lines 46 through 52, the fabric is heat set to sufficiently adhere the yarn to the monofilament.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007