Appeal 2006-2045
Application 10/284,357
“reasonable to presume” that these limitations would be met by the fabric
disclosed by Taylor since Taylor uses similar materials as claimed with
similar production steps (Answer 4).
With regard to the rejection of claims 29 and 35-38, the Examiner
recognizes that Taylor fails to teach using fire resistant materials in the
woven fabric (Answer 5).3 Accordingly, the Examiner applies Goad for the
teaching that medical fabrics, such as those disclosed by Taylor, must meet
or exceed current fire standards, and this objective may be achieved by
treating the fabrics with flame retardants to impart flame resistance (id.).
From these findings, the Examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art to apply a flame retardant, as
taught by Goad, to the reusable medical fabric disclosed by Taylor (id.).
Appellants argue that only the Examiner, not Taylor, identifies a so-
called dpf (denier per filament) ratio from Example 1 of Taylor (Br. 10).
Appellants argue that there is no basis provided by the Examiner or Taylor
that such ratio is universally applicable to other deniers (Br. 11). Appellants
refer to the Adams Declaration which concludes that the number of
filaments of warp and weft yarns within respective denier ranges of 50-150
and 100-300 in Taylor cannot be determined (Br. 10). Appellants argue that
Taylor does not give any indication as to which parameters are critical and
thus no direction is given as to which of many choices is likely to be
successful (Br. 13). Appellants assert that the Examiner has only established
an “obvious to try” standard (Br. 12-13).
3 We note that Taylor does teach that the preferred fabric has a burn rate retardant finish
applied thereto to provide a required property (col. 7, ll. 15-22).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007