Ex Parte Mokveld et al - Page 4



                    Appeal 2006-2652                                                                                                    
                    Application 09/842,373                                                                                              

                    lower than that of nylon possibly because of the low yarn-to-yarn friction                                          
                    exhibited by polyolefin base fibers.  Also, U.S. 5,035,111 [Hogenboom]                                              
                    discusses that the good gliding action of filaments having a low coefficient                                        
                    of friction makes it relatively easy for an impacting bullet to move these                                          
                    filaments apart.                                                                                                    
                           Consequently, since Nanri is not directed to ballistic-resistant clothing                                    
                    or articles, we fully concur with Appellants that one of ordinary skill in the                                      
                    art would not have been motivated by Nanri to include a solvent in the fabric                                       
                    composition of Van der loo.                                                                                         
                           Also, even if the Examiner had established a prima facie case of                                             
                    obviousness, the Examiner’s Answer contains the reversible error of not                                             
                    addressing the evidence of unexpected results discussed at page 13 of                                               
                    Appellants’ Brief.                                                                                                  
                           In conclusion, based on the foregoing, we are constrained to reverse                                         
                    the Examiner’s rejection.                                                                                           
                                                           REVERSED                                                                     





                    clj                                                                                                                 
                    Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP                                                                                        
                    1909 K Street, N.W.                                                                                                 
                    Washington, DC  20006                                                                                               
                                                                   4                                                                    



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4

Last modified: September 9, 2013