Appeal 2006-2120
Application 09/890,863
one of ordinary skill in this art. The Examiner has not identified any
requirement that the claims set forth a “minimum structure” or that the
claims must set forth structure that was conventional and known in the art.
The initial burden of establishing unpatentability, on any ground, rests with
the Examiner. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). We determine that the Examiner has not met this
initial burden. Therefore we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 21-24
under the second paragraph of § 112 as being indefinite.
B. The Rejection under § 102(b)
The Examiner finds that Weber discloses a fabric containing a
plurality of PBO fibers, where these fibers may be grouped together to form
yarns, and the yarns may be made into fabrics by knitting or weaving
(Answer 4). The Examiner further finds that Weber discloses that the yarn
can also contain a composite fiber which includes PBO fibers and aramid,
glass, gel-spun polyethylene, or steel fibers as cut-resistant fibers (id.). The
Examiner also finds that Weber discloses that the cut-resistant fibers are
preferably present in the core of the yarn and wrapped by “wrap fibers” such
as cotton, polyester, or nylon (id.). The Examiner cites the Examples of
Weber, which specifically disclose a PBO core fiber with a polyester wrap
of “dyed polyester” (id.). From these findings, the Examiner determines that
claims 19-21 and 23 are anticipated by Weber (Answer 5).2 With regard to
claims 22 and 24, the Examiner has construed the recitation of “loud-
2 The Examiner cites Kolmes, Warner, and Giesick as additional references
which were incorporated-by-reference into Weber as evidence that PBO can
be used instead of, or in addition to, aramid fibers (Answer 4-5). We
determine that these references are unnecessary to our decision as discussed
infra.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007