Appeal 2006-2969
Application 10/394,075
modify the “surface” of the fibers and yarns. Indeed, there is no disclosure
that such materials do not coat or chemically modify the surface of the fiber
and yarn until after the hydrophobic particles adhere to or located directly on
the surface. The hydrophobic treatment can be applied to one surface and
not other surfaces of the fibers and yarns constituting the textile materials
and fabrics (id., e.g., ¶ 0084).
The interpretation of the claim terms “a surface” and “a hydrophilic
surface” as well as the limitation “surface consisting essentially of a surface
of a fiber or yarn” are in contention with respect to the hydrophobic particles
“located on said surface” and “adhering directly to said surface” in claim 1
and “located directly on said hydrophilic surface” in claim 25. We find no
limitation in the claim language or Specification disclosure on the term
“surface” with respect to the fiber or yarn of a textile material or fabric other
than the “surface” must be less hydrophobic than the hydrophobic particles
of the hydrophobic treatment discontinuously present thereon, which
“surface” thus includes hydrophilic surfaces (Specification, e.g.,
¶¶ 0009, 0010, 0014, 0060-0062, and 0069). Indeed, it is disclosed that the
surface properties of such fibers and yarns can be altered by coating,
including common textile finishes such as dyes (id., e.g., ¶¶ 0005, 0080,
0099, 0176, 0177, and 0217-0219), as well as by chemical modification
(id., e.g., ¶¶ 0004 and 0080). In this respect, in Example 3, dye and PTFE
transferred from a “red polyester shirt” treated with PTFE to a cotton shirt
“control” during washing (id., e.g., ¶ 0099).1 These findings comport with
1 In view of the evidence in Specification Example 3, to the extent PTFE or
other hydrophobic particle can be removed from prior art textile materials
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013