Appeal No. 2007-0412 Page 3
Application No. 10/195,609
1 Appellants the burden of establishing that its claimed products are different from
2 those described in the prior art. If not, have Appellants satisfied their burden to
3 come forward with sufficient credible evidence to establish a patentable
4 difference between their claimed products and those of the prior art.
5
6 FINDINGS OF FACT
7
8 The record supports the following findings of fact by a preponderance of
9 the evidence.
10 1. The examiner finally rejected claims 2, 3, 8-10, 15-17, 22-24 and 29 as
11 being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or, in the alternative, under 35
12 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Willbanks ‘952 or Willbanks ‘733 (see Answer, p 3).
13 2. U.S. Patent 5,080,952 (“Willbanks ‘952”) issued on 14 January 1992 and
14 therefore is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
15 3. U.S. Patent 5,235,733 (“Willbanks ‘733”) issued on 17 August 1993 and is
16 prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
17 4. The claims are drawn to a fabric with specific Kawabata System
18 properties, the fabric having the following structural features:
19 • it is a woven fabric having warp yarns and fill yarns,
20 • with a hydraulically napped surface comprised of a plurality of fiber
21 tangles,
22 • the fiber tangles being comprised of fibers that are substantially intact
23 and undamaged,
24 • the napped surface and the majority of fiber tangles being comprised
25 of fibers from the warp yarns, and
26 • the warp yarns being comprised of spun polyester yarns.
27
28 5. The examiner found that the claimed fabric and the fabrics described in
29 Willbanks ‘952 and ‘953 are structurally identical.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013