Ex Parte Brandel et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 18, 2010

10736119 (B.P.A.I. May. 18, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte LENNART J. BRANDEL,
PER-OLOF GEORG ALGOTSSON, KRISTER DRAXÖ,
MICHAELA KLAUS, and ANDREY KALINAY
________________

Appeal 2009-004597
Application 10/736,119
Technology Center 1700
________________

Decided: May 18, 2010
________________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON, and
MARK NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAGUMO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-004597
Application 10/736,119

2
A. Introduction1
Lennart J. Brandel, Per-Olof Georg Algotsson, Krister Draxö,
Michaela Klaus, and Andrey Kalinay (“Brandel”) timely appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection2 of pending claims 1-10. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We AFFIRM.
The subject matter on appeal relates to woven patterned glass fiber
textile fabrics. According to Brandel, the prior art, represented by a patent
to Moll (cited infra), could not produce a fabric on a Jacquard loom having
warp fibers with a “titer” between 130 and 150 tex, and weft fibers having a
titer between 190 and 400 tex.3 (Spec. 1, ll. 20-29.)
Representative Claim 1 is reproduced from the Claims Appendix to
the Principal Brief on Appeal:
1. A woven, patterned glass fiber textile fabric comprised of a
glass fiber yarn with
a titer of from 270 to 300 tex as the warp, and
a glass fiber yarn having a titer ranging from 68 to 600
tex as the weft.
(Br., Claims App. 1; indentation and paragraphing added.)

1 Application 10/736,119, Patterned Glass Fiber Textile, filed 15 December
2003. The specification is referred to as the “119 Specification,” and is cited
as “Spec.” The real party in interest is listed as Johns Manville. (Appeal
Brief, filed 1 February 2008 (“Br.”), 2.)
2 Office action mailed 21 May 2007 (“Final Rejection”; cited as “FR”).
3 Warp fibers are fixed to the frame of the loom, and may be shifted in front
or behind the path of a shuttle, which draws the weft fibers across the warp
fibers. A Jacquard loom can control the position of each warp fiber,
enabling the production of a vast number of weaving patterns that may be
very intricate. Tex is a measure of linear density: 1 tex = 1 g/1000 m of
yarn.
Appeal 2009-004597
Application 10/736,119

3
The Examiner has maintained the following grounds of rejection:4
A. Claims 1-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), alternatively
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Kölzer.5
B. Claim 10 stands rejected under and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
the combined teachings of Kölzer and Workman.6
C. Claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), alternatively
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Tokarsky.7
D. Claims 7, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
view of the combined teachings of Tokarsky and either Draxo8 or
Edlund.9
E. Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
the combined teachings of Tokarsky and Moll.10
F. Claims 1-7, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
view of the combined teachings of either Draxo or Edlund, and
Tokarsky.

4 Examiner’s Answer mailed 9 April 2008. (“Ans.”). The rejections have
been reordered based on the principal reference applied.
5 Klaus K. Kölzer, Material for Reinforcing Duroplastics Woven Fabric for
Reinforcing Duroplastics having a Specific Distribution of Hollow
Thermoplastic Microspheres within the Thread System, U.S. Patent
5,292,578 (1994).
6 Gerald B. Workman and Lawrence R. Deardurff, U.S. Patent 3,870,547
(1975).
7 Edward William Tokarsky and William Chen Uy, High Speed Melt
Spinning of Fluoropolymer Fibers, U.S. Patent 6,667,097 B2 (2003), based
on an application filed 10 September 2002.
8 Krister Draxö and Thure Svensson, U.S. Patent 6,337,104 B1 (2002).
9 Per Edlund, U.S. Patent 6,759,116 B2 (2004), based on an application
filed 1 May 2002.
10 Andre Moll, U.S. Patent 6,267,151 B1 (2001).
Appeal 2009-004597
Application 10/736,119

4
G Claims 1-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
Blalock.11
H. Claims 7, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
view of the combined teachings of Blalock and either Draxo or
Edlund.
I. Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of
the combined teachings of Blalock and Moll.
Brandel presents substantive arguments against the rejections in view
of Kölzer, Tokarsky, and Blalock. Moreover, Brandel does not present
separate arguments for the patentability of dependent claims rejected over
these references. Arguments against rejections based on combinations of
additional references with these references are essentially cumulative with
the rejections of independent claim 1.
Accordingly, the rejected claims stand or fall with claim 1.
B. Discussion
Findings of fact throughout this Opinion are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence of record.
Kölzer
The Examiner finds that Kölzer describes woven, patterned textiles
made from glass yarns that meet the warp and weft tex limitations recited in
claim 1; alternatively, the Examiner holds that such tex limitations would

11 Paul B. Blalock and William G. Schwartz, Process and Apparatus for
Coloring Textile Yarns, U.S. Patent 4,586,934 (1986).
Appeal 2009-004597
Application 10/736,119

5
have been obvious optimizations of the effects of warp and weft tex on the
strength of the fabric, depth of pile, etc. (FR 2-3.)
Brandel argues that the Examiner has not given sufficient weight to
the term “patterned” in claim 1, and that the Examiner’s finding that “a
woven fiber design is a pattern” (FR 16) is erroneous. (Br. 6.) “Rather than
a woven fiber design being a pattern,” Brandel argues, “glass fabrics can be
woven with a pattern.” (Br. 6, citations to the 119 Specification omitted.)
The critical issue in this rejection is the meaning of the term “pattern”
as used in claim 1.
During prosecution, claims are to be read broadly, in light of the
specification and from the point of view of a person skilled in the art: but
limitations are not to be read from the specification into the claims. In the
present case, the 119 Specification does not define the term “pattern.” At
most, one might infer that the term “pattern” can refer to an esthetically
pleasing textile that might be prepared by a Jacquard weaving process.
(Spec. 2, ll. 17-18.) We are not, however, permitted to read limitations from
the specification into the claims. Moreover, claim 1 does not recite any
limitations as to the kind of loom or weaving process that might require
more structure than is present in the weaves described by Kölzer. Nor has
Brandel come forward with credible evidence that the term “pattern” has
been accorded a special meaning in the textile art. There is no credible
extrinsic evidence that persons having ordinary skill in the art would have
understood the term “pattern” to be restricted as Brandel argues. We also
note that Kölzer shows two distinct weaves, in Figures 1 and 3, that would
Appeal 2009-004597
Application 10/736,119

6
result in different surface textures due to the different number of warp12
threads the weft threads cover (one and two, respectively) as they alternate
above and below the warp threads. Thus, Kölzer demonstrates at least two
“patterns.” Thus, the preponderance of the evidence of record on this issue
weighs in favor of the Examiner.
Brandel also argues that because Kölzer is directed to the fiber
reinforcement of plastics, Kölzer is not in the same field of the claimed
invention, nor is Kölzer concerned with the problems of making woven
patterned glass fiber textiles. (Br. 5.) These objections do not establish
harmful error in the Examiner’s rejections because they do not relate to
limitations in claim 1, given the breadth of the term “pattern,” as explained
supra.
We conclude Brandel has not shown harmful error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Kölzer. We therefore AFFIRM that
rejection. We need not reach the issue of obviousness. The remaining
rejected claims fall with claim 1.
Tokarsky
As Brandel points out (Br. 7), Tokarsky does not disclose or suggest a
glass fiber textile. Rather, Tokarsky relates, particularly in the passages
cited by the Examiner, to fluoropolymer fibers. In the absence of credible
evidence that Tokarsky describes or suggests glass fibers as equivalents to
fluoropolymer fibers, we REVERSE the rejections over Tokarsky.

12 We use Brandel’s terminology, which appears to be standard, rather than
Kölzer’s, which appears to inter-change the meanings of “warp” and “weft.”
Appeal 2009-004597
Application 10/736,119

7
Blalock
The Examiner finds that “Blalock discloses a woven (patterned) glass
textile fabric comprised of a titer of 333 or 666 tex as the warp and weft.”
(FR 8; Ans. 9, citing Blalock col. 2, ll. 49-59, col. 5, lines 18-33, and
Example 1.) As for the silence of Blalock regarding the use of warp and
weft fibers having tex values in the recited ranges, the Examiner holds that
such values would have been obvious as a matter of routine determination of
the optimum value of a result-effective variable. (FR 8; Ans. 10.)
Brandel denies that Blalock discloses using glass fibers with a titer
of 333 or 666 tex as warp and weft. (Br. 11.) Review of Blalock, with
emphasis on the portions cited by the Examiner, supports Brandel’s
arguments. Blalock relates generally to processes and apparatuses for
coloring textile yarns to produce “tone-on-tone” or “striated” appearances in
woven fabrics. (Blalock, abstract; col. 1, ll. 16-25; col. 2, ll. 49-59.) While
Blalock does disclose yarns identified as “666 TEX” and “333 TEX,” said to
be available from Manville Sales Corporation in the United States (Blalock,
col. 5, ll. 22-25), we find no credible evidence that Blalock suggests using
such fibers as the warp. In Example 1, Blalock discloses treating 666 TEX
yarn with a pigmented resin bath and using the resulting colored yarn to
weave a fabric sample shown in Figure 3. (Blalock, col. 7, ll. 20-50.) A
glance at Figure 3 shows a sample with lighter and darker broad horizontal
bands and light colored, much thinner vertical bands. The horizontal bands
appear to correspond to the 666 TEX glass fiber. The narrow bands do not
appear to correspond to 333 TEX glass fibers, or to any other form of glass
fiber.
Appeal 2009-004597
Application 10/736,119

8
Thus, regardless of whether the Examiner is correct that “666 TEX”
refers to a glass fiber having a titer of 666 tex, the Examiner’s premise that
Blalock describes textiles having warps and wefts of such glass fibers is not
supported by credible evidence. Moreover, the Examiner has not explained
what factors, if any, indicate that optimization of any of the factors
associated with weaving glass yarns of various tex values would have led
persons having ordinary skill in the art to fabrics having the warp and weft
tex ranges recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we REVERSE the rejections over Blalock.
C. Order
We AFFIRM the rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b),
alternatively under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Kölzer.
We AFFIRM the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
view of the combined teachings of Kölzer and Workman.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e),
alternatively under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Tokarsky.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 7, 9, and 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of Tokarsky and
either Draxo or Edlund.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 7 and 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of Tokarsky and Moll.
Appeal 2009-004597
Application 10/736,119

9
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-7, 9, and 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of either Draxo or
Edlund, and Tokarsky.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
view of Blalock.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 7, 9, and 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of Blalock and either
Draxo or Edlund.
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 7 and 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of the combined teachings of Blalock and Moll.
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

PL Initial:
sld

JOHNS MANVILLE
Legal Department
10100 West Ute Avenue
Littleton CO 80127