Ex Parte Boyd et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 18, 2008

10298475 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 18, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte WILLIAM O. BOYD, JR., JOHN L. TUCKER, DAVID M.
BROWN, IAIN R. TAYLOR and DEREK SHARPE
____________

Appeal 2008-3549
Application 10/298,475
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: September 18, 2008
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, TERRY J. OWENS, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants appeal from a rejection of claims 1-3, which are all of
the pending claims.

Appeal 2008-3549
Application 10/298,475

THE INVENTION
The Appellants claim a composite fabric comprising two layers
having connections between them. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A composite fabric comprising:
a first fabric layer being a knitted fabric including a first yarn
comprising first filaments; and

a second fabric layer being a knitted fabric including a second yarn
comprising second filaments;
wherein the first layer and the second layer are independent
layers; and, further including:
first layer connections between the first layer and the second
layer comprising at least one of the first filaments extending from the first
yarn of the first layer into the main body of the second yarn in the second
fabric layer; and
second layer connections between the second layer and the first
layer comprising at least one of the second filaments extending from the
second yarn of the second layer into the main body of the first yarn in the
first fabric layer.

THE REFERENCES
Heaton US 667,699 Feb. 12, 1901
Song US 5,211,788 May 18, 1993

THE REJECTION
Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Heaton in view
of Song.
OPINION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection.
Heaton discloses a fabric for making felt boots (ll. 14-15). The fabric
has “two separate pieces of knit goods the fibers of which are united or
2
Appeal 2008-3549
Application 10/298,475

intermixed by means of barbed needles” (ll. 17-19). The fabric can be
woven or knitted (ll. 27-28).
Song discloses a tennis ball having a fabric cover “manufactured by
subjecting a circular knitted high-pile fabric with blended slivers of wool
and nylon fibers laid in so as to be exposed on one surface of the fabric to a
needle-punching process to anchor the respective pile fiber at least at two
parts thereof on the other surface of the fabric, and subjecting the thus
needle-punched fabric to a milling process” (col. 1, ll. 45-52). The fabric
can be spun yarns or multifilament yarns (col. 3, ll. 36-41).
The Appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would not
have been motivated to use Song’s tennis ball single layer fabric in Heaton’s
process for needling together two fabric layers for making boots (Br. 4-6).
Song is relied upon by the Examiner not for a motivation to use
Song’s fabric in Heaton’s process but, rather, for a disclosure that needling
was known to be applicable to both spun yarns and filament yarns (Ans. 5).
Heaton’s disclosure that the fabric can be woven or knitted (ll. 27-28) would
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to use in the fabric either of the two
types of yarns suitable for weaving or knitting, i.e., spun yarns or filament
yarns, particularly in view of Song’s indication that needling is suitable for
both of those types of yarn (col. 3, ll. 36-41). 1
The Appellants argue that “nothing with the cited references teaches
that any filaments within the yarns would be broken and become free to
form the type of connections specified in the pending claims (Br. 6-7).

1 Heaton’s use of the term “fibers” (ll. 17-19) appears to be similar to the
Appellants’ use of that term as including both fibers and filaments
(Spec. 14:11 – 15:6).
3
Appeal 2008-3549
Application 10/298,475

The Appellants’ claims do not require broken filaments. Moreover,
the Appellants’ Specification does not indicate that the filaments necessarily
must be broken but, rather, discloses that the filaments either can be broken
or can be stretched or pulled such that they follow the needle until they
become free of the needle (Spec. 14:20 – 15:2). Thus, the record indicates
that the Appellants’ claim term “connections” encompasses Heaton’s
connections formed by needling, regardless of whether Heaton’s needling
breaks any filaments.
For the above reasons we are not convinced of reversible error in the
Examiner’s rejection.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Heaton in
view of Song is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

tc
JEFFERY E. BACON
LEGAL DEPARTMENT, M-495
P.O. BOX 1926
SPARTANBURG, SC 29304
4