Appeal 2006-2352
Application 10/065,436
However, in the present case, the Examiner has not established with
sufficient specificity how the applied prior art substantially corresponds to
each claim feature to support the inference that the prior art would also be
attended by all of the claimed functional absorption features. In particular,
Appellants have correctly noted that Tamiya’s fiber product includes a
sheath part, which is melt extruded about the hollow core part. The
Examiner has not fairly explained how the Tamiya composite fiber
reasonably corresponds to the filament constructions of Appellants so as to
fairly expect that the sheath covered hollow core filaments of Tamiya would
necessarily possess sufficient openings to substantially fill with an aqueous
liquid, or to reasonably expect that the sheath covered hollow core filaments
of Tamiya would have absorbency characteristics in volume percent
comparable to those claimed by Appellants for their filaments. After all,
Appellants’ Specification describes the subject filaments as being made
absorbent by opening the filaments to allow communication of the interior
thereof with a location outside of the filament as opposed to surrounding an
interior hollow-containing core part of a fiber with a thermally bonded
sheath part without any directions for the subsequent opening thereof, as
Tamiya seems to instruct (See Specification, ¶¶ 0031, 0032; and Tamiya, ex.
1 and fig. 1). Consequently, the Examiner has not established, prima facie,
how the applied Tamiya, alone or in combination with Jennergren, teaches
or suggests a filament or fiber that is made in substantially the same way and
using substantially the same materials as Appellants disclose in making their
claimed filaments, such that an inference can be reasonably made that
Tamiya’s fibers would be expected to possess absorbency properties as
claimed.
18
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013