Appeal 2006-2969
Application 10/394,075
discloses the particles are deposited on the fiber surface via a dispersion
which can “comprise water and may comprise additional additives,” but
does not disclose that a chromium complex compound in the dispersion
materially affects the basic and novel characteristics of the surface (id. 17-
18, citing Specification ¶¶ 0066 and 0067). The Examiner contends Trask
discloses the PTFE particles improve the hydrophobicity of the fibers (id.
18-19, citing Trask col. 1, ll. 10-16, and col. 2, ll. 47-57). The Examiner
relies on the same contentions with respect to Lack and Keller (id. 19-21,
citing Lack col. 1, ll. 10-16, and col. 2, ll. 47-57, and Keller col. 1, ll. 4-9
and 36-42).
The issues in this appeal are whether the Examiner has carried the
burden of establishing a prima facie case of anticipation in each of the
grounds of rejection under §§ 102(b) and 102(e) by establishing that, as a
matter of fact, each of Trask, Lack, and Keller show each and every element
of the claimed invention arranged as required by claims 1 and 25, either
expressly or under the principles of inherency, in a manner sufficient to have
placed a person of ordinary skill in the art in possession thereof. See, e.g., In
re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990). We
note again here that Appellants rely on the same arguments with respect to
the grounds of rejection under § 103(a).
We interpret claims 1 and 25 by giving the terms thereof the broadest
reasonable interpretation in their ordinary usage in context as they would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the written
description in the Specification unless another meaning is intended by
Appellants as established therein, and without reading into the claim any
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013