Ex Parte Galligan et al - Page 4



              Appeal 2007-1018                                                                        
              Application 10/376,782                                                                  

              over Geisel, alone, or in combination with other pertinent prior art.  The              
              Examiner should consider the obviousness of forming a webbing comprising                
              a mixture of Geisel’s phosphorescent synthetic yarns and other known                    
              synthetic yarns that are not treated to be phosphorescent.  Since Appellants            
              acknowledge that it was known in the art that conventional synthetic yarns              
              lose their strength upon exposure to ultraviolet light at a known rate, and it          
              was known that phosphorescent material loses its glow over time due to                  
              exposure to ultraviolet light, the Examiner should consider the obviousness             
              of correlating these two known rates of loss.  Also, if the Examiner                    
              determines that it would have been obvious to intermingle the                           
              phosphorescent fibers of Geisel with non-phosphorescent conventional                    
              fibers to form a web, the question arises whether doing so would inherently             
              result in a webbing wherein the diminished glow of the phosphorescent                   
              fibers correlates to the loss of strength of the non-phosphorescent fibers to           
              the non-specified degree claimed. We note that the appealed claims do not               
              require that the glow disappear when the fabric reaches a specific, unsafe              
              point of weakness, or any particular degree of weakness.                                
                     In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the Examiner’s decision                   
              rejecting the appealed claims is reversed.  Also, the application is remanded           
              to the Examiner for consideration of a rejection of the appealed claims under           
              35 U.S.C. § 103.                                                                        
                     This remand to the examiner pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(a)(1)                     
              (effective September 13, 2004, 69 Fed. Reg. 49960 (August 12, 2004),                    

                                                  4                                                   



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013