Appeal 2006-2045
Application 10/284,357
that would then provide an objective basis for showing that the invention,
although apparently obvious, was in law non-obvious. [Citations omitted].
For obviousness under § 103, all that is required is a reasonable expectation
of success.”).
Appellants argue that nowhere in Taylor is there a disclosure that the
fabric may be used as a curtain or bedspread, as claimed by Appellants (Br.
14). This argument is not persuasive since Taylor does disclose use of his
fabric as “surgical drapes” which can clearly be considered as a “curtain”
(col. 3, ll. 67-68). Furthermore, Appellants have only defined the terms
“curtain or bedspread” as fabric with stitching and pleating for a curtain
(Specification 5, l. 18) or stitching and hemming (Specification 6, ll. 3-4).
See also Figures 8 and 9 of the Specification. Taylor exemplifies a fabric
with stitching and hemming (see Figure 1), thus “reading on” the claimed
curtain or bedspread.
Appellants argue that Taylor does not disclose or suggest the six
parameters measured, as recited in claim 26 on appeal, that are characteristic
of a particular “hand” of the claimed fabric (Br. 15). This argument is not
persuasive. First, we find that Taylor does suggest some of these
parameters, including flexibility, drapability, surface texture (i.e.,
roughness), weight, and “similar factors,” with the teaching that these
“relative terms” characterize the desired “hand” (col. 2, ll. 46-54). Second,
as correctly noted by the Examiner (Answer 4 and 7-8), a reasonable belief
that these properties would have been the same or similar has been
established due to the use by Taylor of similar materials processed in a
similar manner to the claimed fabric. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708,
15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“[I]t was reasonable for the PTO
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007