Appeal 2006-2352
Application 10/065,436
containing filament such that claim 2 could not read on the alkali treated
PET- containing hollow filaments of Shiozaki?
We answer these questions in the negative. Consequently, we affirm
the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 2, 4, 5, and 11 through 15
over Shiozaki.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The record supports the following findings of fact by a preponderance
of the evidence.
Appellants’ Specification describes the subject invention as being
directed to liquid absorbent materials, particularly highly absorbent fibers.
Appellants’ Claim 2, as reproduced above, employs “consisting essentially
of” terminology in denominating the claimed hollow polyester filament.
Appellants’ Specification provides preferred embodiments wherein
“the filament consists essentially of polyethylene terephthalate (‘PET’)”
(Specification 4), but does not furnish an express definition for the term
“consisting essentially of.” (See the Specification in its entirety).
The Specification provides that polyester is a preferred filament
forming material and notes that “polyester” is “a manufactured fiber in
which the fiber forming substance is any long chain synthetic palmer [sic;
polymer] composed of at least 85% by weight of an ester of a substituted
aromatic carboxylic acid, including but not restricted to substituted
terephthalate units and parasubstituted hydroxyl benzoate units”
(Specification 4). The Specification further explains that the above-quoted
definition is consistent with a U.S. Federal Trade Commission standard, 16
C.F.R. § 303.7, and is generally adhered to by the industry. Id.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013