Appeal 2007-1370
Application 10/250,360
Thus, the dispositive question is whether the Examiner has
demonstrated that Vane’s composite laminate comprising a layup of non-
woven fiber plies bonded in a matrix material necessarily possesses at least
one hairy yarn within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) On this record, we
answer this question in the negative.
As indicated above, one of ordinary skill in the art must pick and
choose a particular combination from those listed in Vane to “inherently”
form the claimed “hairy” yarn. In other words, the claimed “hairy” yarn is
not necessarily formed; it is formed by chance if an appropriate combination
of methods and materials is chosen. Since the Examiner’s inherency theory
is based on probabilities or possibilities of making the right selection from
various embodiments described in Vane, we cannot agree with the Examiner
that Vane’s composite laminate comprising a layup of non-woven fiber plies
bonded in a matrix material necessarily possesses at least one hairy yarn
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
OTHER ISSUE
We observe that the Appellant acknowledges at page 1, lines 25-32, of
the Specification that:
It is also known to produce carbon yarn formed from many
short fibres spun together. This produces a yarn with numerous
short lengths of fibre protruding out from the main orientation
of fibres, and will be referred to in the application as a "hairy"
yarn. It is also known in the art to use the yarn in the
production of woven and non-woven fabrics which have
improved interlaminar shear strengths and cross-ply tensile
Philips teaches that the filament formed from staple yarns is known to have
protruding free ends (col. 1).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013