Appeal 2006-2352
Application 10/065,436
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Shiozaki. Claims 2, 4 through 10, and 72
through 80 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Hirakawa
(JP 57139600A). Claims 16 through 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tamiya in view of Jennergren.
We affirm the anticipation rejection over Shiozaki, reverse the other
rejections, and remand the application to the Examiner for further
consideration.
I. § 102 REJECTION OVER SHIOZAKI
Appellants argue the claims together. We select claim 2 as the
representative claim on which we shall decide the appeal as to this rejection.
The Examiner contends that Shiozaki describes, expressly or
inherently, a hollow polyethylene terephthalate (PET) containing filament
possessing sufficient capillary openings therein to provide good absorbency
(substantially fill with a liquid such as water), and which filament falls
within the scope of Appellants’ representative claim 2.
Appellants contend that the transitional phrase “consisting essentially
of” serves to exclude the presence of organic sulfonates of the type and
amount used by Shiozaki in forming the claimed hollow polyester filament.
ISSUE AND SUMMARY RESOLUTION
Have Appellants identified reversible error in the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection in their Brief? More specifically, have Appellants
established that the application record requires that the broadest reasonable
construction of claim 2 excludes using organic sulfonates in forming a PET-
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013