Appeal 2007-1888
Application 10/258,067
the steam-heating step of Jones and the immersing step of Nguyen perform a
similar function, i.e., imparting stain resist properties to fiber,” and thus,
“one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to utilize an additional
and unnecessary step, i.e., stream treatment, in the process of Nguyen” (Br.
10-12). Appellants further contend that “one of ordinary skill would not
have been motivated to replace the single immersing step of Nguyen (heated
bath) with both application (at ambient temperature) and steam treating,
[with] the two-step process of Jones” (Br. 12, original emphasis omitted;
Reply Br. 4-5).
The issue in this appeal is whether the Examiner has carried the
burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness by combining
Nguyen and Jones.
The plain language of method claim 1 specifies a method of treating
any manner of textile comprising at least the five stated steps, including
treating the textile in any manner with a treatment liquid comprising at least
a water- and oil-repellent agent and then further treating the treated textile
with steam. The water- and oil-repellent agent comprises at least any
fluorine-containing polymer and/or fluorine containing low molecular
weight compound, and any metal salt of any “organic acid” wherein the
carboxylic acids falling under this term are limited as stated. The plain
language of product claim 11 specifies a water- and oil-repellent agent of the
scope specified in claim 1, which has the capability to be used in any method
comprising at least the same five steps specified in claim 1. It is well settled
that the term “comprising” opens the claim to include embodiments having
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013