Ex Parte Emery et al - Page 3


                 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