Appeal No. 2007-0412 Page 6
Application No. 10/195,609
1 14. Kawabata System properties, such as LC (Linearity) and MIU (Coefficient
2 of friction) (see claim 2 above), and their units are defined in Table 2 of the
3 specification (p. 18).
4 15. The Examiner found that “it is reasonable to presume that the presently
5 claimed properties are inherent to each of the Willbanks fabrics” (Answer, p. 4).
6 16. The basis for the Examiner’s finding rests on her conclusion that there is
7 no apparent structural or chemical difference between the claimed and Willbanks’
8 fabrics (Answer, p. 4):
9 Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials (i.e.,
10 woven fabrics of spun polyester warp yarns) and the use of like processes
11 (i.e., hydraulically napping). Since both Willbanks fabrics meet the present
12 structural and chemical features of the invention, the claimed properties
13 must be inherent to each [Willbanks] invention.
14
15 Emphasis added.
16 17. Appellants concede that “the starting material [for the claimed and
17 Willbanks’ fabrics] may be similar” (Brief, p. 6) but disagree with the Examiner’s
18 premise that the claimed and Willbanks’ fabrics use “like” materials made by
19 “like” processes. Brief, pp. 6-7.
20 18. Appellants argue that they use a different process to treat the starting
21 material than the process described by the Willbanks references. Use of a
22 different process is said to produce a fabric different from that of the Willbanks
23 references.
24 19. Appellants rely on the following evidence in support of their argument
25 (Brief, pp. 6-7):
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013