Appeal 2006-2352
Application 10/065,436
PET- containing filament. (See the Brief in its entirety.) As we noted above,
Appellants refer to polyester as being “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). Appellants’
Specification further discloses that their filaments are prepared using
methods, which include chemically treating or chemically modifying the
hollow polyester filaments, to render the filaments fluid (water) absorbable
(Specification 12-14). Given the above, Appellants assertion that the
broadest reasonable construction of representative claim 2 must be found to
exclude polyester (PET) filaments prepared with the use of chemical
treatments, such as employed by Shiozaki, is not supported by the record
before us.
We observe that Appellants do not advance any particularized and/or
persuasive arguments in the Brief that serve to establish that the Examiner
reversibly erred in assessing that the number of pores (openings) formed in
the hollow PET-containing filaments of Shiozaki are sufficient to result in
filaments possessing substantial water-filling characteristics, as claimed.
This is especially so given that a high water absorbing capacity filament is
disclosed as being obtained by the pore-forming treatment of Shiozaki.
Thus, the pores formed, according to Shiozaki’s technique, would
reasonably be expected to correspond to the claimed “sufficient openings…”
(Representative Claim 2). See, e.g., Answer 3 and Shiozaki, exs. 1-9.
It follows that, on this record, the Examiner has presented a prima
facie case of anticipation, including a factual showing and determination that
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013