Ex Parte Liao

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 11, 2009

10728358 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 11, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte TIANYI LIAO
____________

Appeal 2009-006288
Application 10/728,358
Technology Center 1700
____________

Decided: December 11, 2009
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, CHARLES F. WARREN, and
TERRY J. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 9-20. Claims 9
and 15 are illustrative:
9. A composite yarn, comprising:
at least one elastomeric fiber forming a strand with a total
draft in a range from 1.2X to 6.2X of an original spun length of
the strand;
Appeal 2009-006288
Application 10/728,358

2
at least one hard yarn selected from the group consisting
of: synthetic fibers, natural fibers and a blend of synthetic and
natural fibers, wherein said hard yarn is aligned adjacent
and substantially parallel to said strand to make an aligned
yarn; and
a dried or cured size material forming an adhesive that
adheres the strand and hard yarn of the aligned yarn together.
15. An elastic woven fabric, comprising upon weaving
and before final fabric finishing:
composite yarns of claim 9 and hard yarns in the warp;
and hard yarns in the weft;
wherein the ratio of said composite yarns to said hard
yarns in the warp ranges from 1:1 to 1:4.
The Examiner relies upon the following references in the rejection of
the appealed claims:
Hayes 3,719,664 Mar. 6, 1973
Miller 3,867,242 Feb. 18, 1975
Strachan 3,940,917 Mar. 2, 1976
Brodowski 5,896,634 Apr. 27, 1999
Nakatomi 4733754 Aug. 26, 1972

Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a composite yarn
comprising hard yarn that is aligned adjacent and substantially parallel to a
strand of elastomeric fiber. A size material adheres the strand of elastomeric
fiber and hard yarn together.
The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
follows:
(a) claims 9-20 over Strachan in view of Brodowski,
(b) claims 9-10 and 12-20 over Strachan in view of Nakatomi,
(c) claims 9-16 over Strachan in view of Hayes,
Appeal 2009-006288
Application 10/728,358

3
(d) claims 13-20 over Strachan in view of Brodowski and
Miller,
(e) claims 13-20 over Strachan in view of Nakatomi and Miller,
and
(f) claims 13-16 over Strachan in view of Hayes and Miller.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant’s arguments for
patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for essentially those
reasons expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
There is no dispute that Strachan, like Appellant, discloses a
composite yarn comprising at least one elastomeric fiber and at least one
hard yarn adjacent to the elastomeric fiber. The principal argument
advanced by Appellant is that “Strachan does not provide yarn having an
elastic strand aligned with hard fibers because the yarn prepared by Strachan
is entangled” (Br. 5, first full para.). However, Appellant concedes that
“[w]hen the yarn of Strachan is in a stretched position such that the hard
yarn becomes load bearing, there are portions of the yarn where an
elastomeric strand and a hard yarn which [sic] are ‘substantially parallel’ to
each other” (Br. 5, sec. full para.). Since we agree with the Examiner that
the appealed claims “do not require that every portion of the hard yarn must
be substantially parallel with every portion of the elastomeric strand” (Ans.
13, first sentence), we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that Strachan
discloses an aligned yard within the scope of the appeal claims, i.e., “a
Appeal 2009-006288
Application 10/728,358

4
composite yarn that comprises portions wherein a hard yarn and an
elastomeric strand are substantially parallel” (Ans. 13, first para.).
Also, according to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language, 4th edition, copyright 2002, the term “yarn” is defined as “1. A
continuous strand of twisted threads of natural or synthetic material, such as
wool or nylon, used in weaving or knitting.” Hence, since the claimed
composite yarn is, by definition, comprised of twisted threads, we perceive
no distinction in yarns within the scope of the appealed claims and the
composite yarns of Strachan wherein both the claimed and prior art yarns do
not comprise strands and fibers in a straight line. We agree with the
Examiner’s rationale that “[c]onsidering that the hard yarn and elastomeric
strand of Strachan are aligned in the same overall direction, the hard yarn
and elastomeric strand are substantially parallel”, as well as aligned, to the
extent presently claimed. (Ans. 12, last sentence).
It is also noteworthy that neither independent claims 7 nor 19 requires
any alignment between the elastomeric fibers and the hard yarn. We agree
with the Examiner that the elastomeric fibers and hard yarn of Strachan are
substantially parallel to each other.
As for Appellant’s argument that Strachan teaches away from the
claimed invention by pointing out that the step of using fibers with a sizing
material is unnecessary, Appellant has not refuted the Examiner’s finding
that “Strachan simply discloses that an especially cohesive size material
should not be applied, prior to the entangling process, to allow the bundle to
open during the entangling process (col. 6, ll. 52-59).” (Ans. 13, sec. para.).
Appellant has pointed to no error in the Examiner’s finding that “Strachan
discloses that certain finishes may be applied prior to the entangling process
Appeal 2009-006288
Application 10/728,358

5
that do not prevent the hard yarns from opening during the entanglement
process and that any size material may be applied after the entangling
process” (id.).
As a final point, we note that Appellant bases no argument upon
objective of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

kmm

INVISTA NORTH AMERICA S.A.R.L.
THREE LITTLE FALLS CENTRE/1052
2801 CENTERVILLE ROAD
WILMINGTON, DE 19808