Appeal 2006-2352
Application 10/065,436
representative claim 2 reads on the hollow PET-containing polyester
filaments of Shiozaki, which filaments include pores that render the
filaments water absorbing (substantially water–filling).
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellants have not established that the application record requires a
broadest reasonable construction of claim 2 excluding organic sulfonates
from being used in manufacturing the filaments, such that claim 2 could not
read on the alkali-treated PET-containing hollow filaments of Shiozaki. Nor
have Appellants otherwise identified reversible error in the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection over Shiozaki.
II. § 102/§ 103 REJECTION OVER HIRAKAWA
Claims 2 and 72 are the only independent claims subject to the
Examiner’s rejections over Hirakawa (JP S57-139600).
The Examiner contends that Hirakawa discloses empty core fibers that
anticipate under § 102 or, in the alternative, would have rendered obvious,
within the meaning of § 103, the subject matter of claims 2, 4-10, and 72-80
based on inferences from asserted commonalities.
Appellants contend that the Examiner has not reasonably shown that
Hirakawa meets or suggests the limitations of either of claims 2 and 72
based on the empty core disclosure thereof.
ISSUE AND SUMMARY RESOLUTION
Have Appellants identified reversible error in the Examiner’s
anticipation and/or obviousness rejections in their Brief? More specifically,
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013