Appeal No. 2007-0412 Page 2
Application No. 10/195,609
1 We AFFIRM.
2 Appellants, in the Brief2, argue the claims as a group. Pursuant to the
3 rules, the Board selects representative claim 23 to decide the appeal. 37 CFR §
4 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2005). Accordingly, all the claims stand or fall with claim 2.
5 Claim 2 reads as follows:
6 2. A fabric having a hydraulically napped surface comprised of a
7 plurality of fiber tangles, said fiber tangles being comprised of fibers that
8 are substantially intact and undamaged, said fabric having a Kawabata
9 System LC value greater than 0.375 and an MIU value greater than 0.195,
10 wherein said fabric is a woven fabric having warp yarns and fill yarns and
11 said napped surface is comprised of fibers from said warp yarns, wherein
12 said warp yarns are comprised of spun polyester yarns, and wherein the
13 majority of said fibers comprising said fiber tangles are from said warp
14 yarns.
15
16
17 ISSUES
18
19 The issue on appeal is whether Appellants have established that the
20 Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as being unpatentable over the prior art.
21 More specifically, have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in shifting to
2 Our decision will make reference to appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Brief,” filed
12 May 2006) and to the examiner’s Answer (“Answer,” mailed 28 July 2006).
3 Claim 2 is one of four independent claims (other independent claims are claims
9, 16, and 23), all directed to a fabric. The independent claims describe fabrics
with different Kawabata System properties, i.e.,
• Claim 2: a Kawabata System LC value greater than 0.375 and an MIU
value greater than 0.195;
• Claim 9: a Kawabata System DEN50 value less than 0.40 and an MIU
value greater than 0.195;
• Claim 16: a Kawabata System 2HB value less than 0.130 and an MIU
value greater than 0.195; and,
• Claim 23: a Kawabata System 2HB value less than 0.130 and a COMP
value greater than 42.5.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013