Appeal No. 2006-2004
Application 10/022,823
We refer to the answer and to the brief and reply brief for a complete exposition of the
positions advanced by the examiner and appellants.
Opinion
The principal issue in this appeal involves the product-by-process claim language of
independent claim 16 specifying that any cellulosic material contained by any manner of textile
material is “treated” in any manner with any amount of any polyvinylamine and any amount of a
complexing agent such that some amount of complexing agent bonds some amount of
polyvinylamine to the cellulosic material. Dependent claim 24 further modifies claim 16 by
requiring the textile material to further contain nitrogen containing natural or synthetic fibers.
See, e.g., In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed.
Cir. 2004); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
In order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of claims 16 and 24 under
§ 103(a), the examiner must show that some objective teaching, suggestion or motivation in the
applied prior art taken as a whole and/or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill
in this art would have led that person to the claimed invention as a whole, including each and
every limitation of the claim arranged as required by the claims, without recourse to the
teachings in appellants’ disclosure. See generally, In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-88, 78
USPQ2d 1329, 1334-37 (Fed. Cir. 2006); In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430,
1433-34 (Fed. Cir. 2002); In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1358, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir.
1998); Pro-Mold and Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d
1626, 1629-30 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1265-66, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-
84 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074-76, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598-1600 (Fed. Cir.
1988); In re Dow Chem. Co., 837 F.2d 469, 473, 5 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
The principal issues raised in these grounds of rejection are whether one of ordinary skill
in this art would have found in the combined teachings of Schrell with Evani and with Geer the
suggestion to treat the textile fibers of Schrell, which contain an occluded polyvinylamine, with
the pH sensitive binders of Evani and with the polymers of Geer in the reasonable expectation of
enhancing the strength of the fibers of Schrell, and in such manner as to further reasonably
appear to bond the polyvinylamine contained by the fibers of Schrell to the cellulosic material of
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007