Appeal 2007-3955
Application 09/756,956
by dyeing the entire fabric (Answer 6-7). Thomas discloses the water
soluble acid dyeable polymer that can comprise thickeners (Thomas, col. 5,
ll. 4-35). Thomas discloses the dyeable polymer can be dried before
subsequent treatment (Thomas, col. 6, ll. 55-65).
Appellants’ principal argument is that, “[i]nstead of retarding dyeing
by inhibition of wetting, it appears that Thomas discloses application of a
polymer which enhances dyeing of the areas to which the polymer has been
applied.” (emphasis omitted) (Br. 9).
Appellants’ argument is not persuasive. The claimed invention does
not preclude the areas that have been treated from having an enhanced
dyeability. In fact, as stated above, the Specification discloses that the
treated portion may be treated so as to be colored differently from the
surrounding area. Further, Thomas discloses the dyeable polymer is applied
to the fabric and dried prior to subsequent treatment. Since the dyeable
polymer of Thomas is dried prior to subsequent treatment and comprises
similar components to those utilized in the claimed chemical substance, it is
reasonable to believe that the treated area of the fabric would have some
reduced wetability compared to the remaining portions of the fabric.
Appellants have not directed us to evidence that establishes the treated and
dried portions of Thomas do not possess some reduced wetability.
The Rejection over Moore
The Examiner determined that Moore would have suggested to a
person of ordinary skill in the art a printing process for fabrics that
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013