Appeal 2006-2287
Application 10/631,320
yarn under conditions for twist setting the yarn, “thereby retaining the twist
in cut-pile carpets” which improves, among other things, durability and wear
performance (Bowers, e.g., 3:10, to 4:21, 6:1-20, and Examples 1-4). We
find no disclosure in Bowers of a step of heat-activating the binder fiber that
does not result in twist setting the yarn.
In the absence of scientific reasoning or evidence establishing one of
ordinary skill in the art would have recognized in Bowers as a whole a
teaching or inference of a step of heat activating the binder fiber that does
not result in twist setting the yarn, the Examiner has not established that this
person would have considered the cited portion of Bowers to provide the
teachings and inferences argued in the Answer. See, e.g., In re Rouffet,
149 F.3d 1350, 1358, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“hindsight”
is inferred when the specific understanding or principal within the
knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art leading to the modification of
the prior art in order to arrive at Appellant’s claimed invention has not been
explained); Fritch, 972 F.2d at 1266, 23 USPQ2d at 1783-84 (“The mere
fact that the prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by the
Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the prior art
suggested the desirability of the modification.”).
Accordingly, in the absence of a prima facie case of obviousness, we
reverse the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013