Appeal 2006-2969
Application 10/394,075
claims 16, and 31 through 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Keller as applied to 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9 through 16, 19, 20, and 25 through 29
(id. 14-15).
Appellants argue independent claims 1 and 25 in the grounds of
rejection under § 102(b) and § 102(e) as representative of the appealed
claims as a group in each ground (Br. 6-10). Appellants rely on the same
arguments with respect to the grounds of rejection under § 103(a). Thus, we
decide this appeal based on appealed claims 1 and 25 as representative of the
grounds of rejection and Appellants’ groupings of claims. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2005).
The Examiner contends Trask discloses the fabric surface is
discontinuously complexed with a complex compound and “the hydrophobic
particles are attracted and held directly to said surface by van der Waals
forces” (Answer 3, citing Trask col. 2, ll. 7-57). The Examiner contends
Lack discloses the fabric surface discontinuously has a urea resin thereon
and “the hydrophobic particles are adhered directly to said surface” (id. 5,
citing Lack col. 2, 26-46, and col. 3, ll. 19-30). The Examiner contends
Keller discloses the fabric surface discontinuously has a binder thereon and
“the hydrophobic particles are adhered directly to said surface” (id. 6-7,
citing Keller col. 3, ll. 29-35). The Examiner contends it appears the
discontinuous treatment taught in each reference is identical to the claimed
treatment and would inherently increase the water release rate near dryness
of the textile material (id. 3-4, 5, and 7).
Appellants contend the electron micrographs set forth in the Evidence
Appendix “show the control fibers treated with water only versus the fibers
of the invention treated with a low level of an aqueous dispersion of PTFE[,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013