Appeal 2007-1370
Application 10/250,360
properties, as a consequence of through-thickness property
improvements associated with the short fibres.
In other words, the Appellant acknowledges that the employment of the
claimed “hairy” yarn in the non-woven fabric is known to improve
“interlaminar shear strengths and cross-ply tensile properties”
Thus, upon return of this application, the Examiner is advised to
determine whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to
employ the claimed “hairy” yarn in forming the non-woven plies taught in
Vane (and optionally Cheshire) in view of the Appellant’s admission
regarding the known advantages of employing “hairy” yarns.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s § 102(b)
rejection of claims 1 through 12 and remand the application to the Examiner
to determine whether Vane, the Appellant’s admission at page 1 of the
Specification and optionally Cheshire affect the patentability of claims 1
through 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (1) (iv) (2006).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013