Appeal No. 2007-0412 Page 10
Application No. 10/195,609
1 of “subject“ fabrics and that of “competing” fabrics. That experimental study is
2 not helpful in supporting Appellants’ contention because, even if we assume that
3 the “subject” fabrics correspond to the fabrics as claimed, Appellants have not
4 identified which, if any, of the “competing” fabrics corresponds to the Willbanks
5 ‘952 and Willbanks ‘733 fabrics.
6 Appellants rely instead on evidence showing a method of making a fabric
7 that is different from the process described in the Willbanks references. The
8 evidence shows that Appellants have previously received a patent (U.S. Patent
9 No. 6,546,605) claiming a process of forming a napped fabric that involves
10 contacting the textile with steam following impingement on the support surface
11 (see Figure 4 of the instant application). In contrast, the Willbanks references
12 (Figure 14) describe a process whereby the steam contacts the textile while the
13 textile remains on the support surface. See the Willbanks Declaration, section
14 IX, where Dr. Willbanks testifies that in his experience “the interaction between a
15 plurality of high pressure streams of liquid and a textile substrate is difficult to
16 predict, even given similar substrates and similar processes, due in part to the
17 role played by the liquid after it passes through the substrate,” suggesting that
18 the process may or may not produce a fabric with properties that differ from a
19 fabric produced by the Willbanks process. (Emphasis added.)
20 Dr. Willbanks states that he “believe[s] that substantial process differences
21 exist between the process described in the above referenced application and [the
22 references].” However, Dr. Willbanks has not described what those differences
23 are nor has he explained why the end results for the alleged process differences
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013