COMMISSIONER'S DECISION
OBVIOUSNESS - Embossed Carpet
The application claims a process for making a printed and embossed
carpet. The cited art did not teach nor suggest the process of the
present application.
Final Action: Reversed
*****************
This decision deals with a request for review by the Commissioner of
Patents of the Examiner's Final Action dated January 15, 1976, on
application 143,410, Class 8-37. The application was filed on May 30,
1972, and is entitled "In-Register Printed and Embossed Carpet". The
Patent Appeal Board conducted a Hearing on July 6, 1977, at which
Mr. D. Watson, Q.C. represented the applicant.
This application relates to the process of producing an In-Register Printed
and Embossed Carpet. More particularly the carpet passes through a series
of printing stations which apply a pattern to the carpet due to the dyes
in the printing inks. At some of the printing stations, the inks which
provide the pattern components to the carpets also contain a solvent which
will cause shrinkage of the carpet fibers (when steamed) to secure an
embossed effect to the carpet. Figure 1, shown below, is a representation
of the process utilized:
(See Figure 1)
In the Final Action the examiner refused the claims in view of the follow-
ing references:
Canadian Patent
335,836 Sept. 19, 1933 Dickie
United States Patent
3,505,000 Apr. 7, 1970 Shinmura
Dickie shows the printing of a fabric with an embossing agent. The em-
bossing is achieved by physical removal of the fiber, rather than by
fiber shrinkage.
Shinmura teaches the chemical shrinking of fibers to give a seersucker
or crepe design on woven or knitted piece goods. The fabrics however, are
not pile fabrics. The references will be discussed in more detail later.
In the Final Action the examiner stated his position (in part) as follows:
...
Shinmura et al utilize a printing station wherein a pattern is
printed on the fabric. The printing paste contains an em-
bossing agent which is capable of shrinking the fibers of the
fabric. After the printing operation the fabric is subjected
to a steaming operation to shrink the fibers. The fabric is then
washed and dried.
The rejection of claims 1-2 as obvious in view of the applied
references when viewed with the state of the art is therefore
maintained.
Applicant's alleged invention as reflected in the claims is
directed to the combination of a two step printing operation
followed by steaming, washing and drying. The two step
printing operation is an "in register" printing operation
characterized by the inclusion of a chemical embossing agent,
("a solvent,") in the printing paste at the second printing step.
The printing of materials (such as pile fabrics) with an
embossing agent is shown in both patents. Dickie et al
teach that the embossing agent can be a solvent for the
fibers and also that the embossing agent can be combined
with a colourant. Both patents teach that to bring about
the shrinking of the fibers the fabric must be subjected to
elevated temperatures such as to a steaming operation (Shinmura
et al).
In register printing, which comprises the printing of different
patterns, using several printing stencils or rollers, on a
fabric is well known. Since the printing of a material, such
as a pile fabric with a paste containing a colourant and a fiber
solvent is known (Dickie et al) the in register printing of
a fabric with different coloured pastes plus a paste that
also contains an embossing solvent is deemed an obvious
combination. As far as the single steaming step is concerned,
it is known that steam can be used to both set dues into fabrics
and to bring about the shrinking action of fiber solvents.
Therefore since it is known to combine the colourant and
"solvent " in a printing paste, it is obvious to employ a single
steaming operation....
The applicant in his response to the Final Action had this to say (in part)
as follows:
...
In accordance with the teachings of Shinmura et al to obtain the
embossed seersucker or crepe design on woven or knitted piece
goods a printing paste is applied to the fabric. It is brought
to the Examiner's attention that there is no suggestion of the
use of a solvent in the printing paste and it appears that the paste
merely acts to shrink the fabric. Claim 1 presently on file clearly
defines over such concept in employing in-registry printed patterns,
one of the pattern components employing a printing ink containing
a solvent for the carpet fibers. Shinmura et al merely applies the
paste and subsequently steams the woven or knitted piece goods
whereby shrinkage occurs to attain an embossed seersucker design.
There is no concept of employing either dye components or printing
components to attain a pattern nor is there any teaching in this
prior art reference of applying steam to shrink the fibers which
are effected by the solvent to produce the embossed effect in
the printed areas as well as to set the dye in a carpet.
Shinmura et al attains a crepe type of material whereas appli-
cant's process produces a carpet having a pattern printed on the
carpet with the pattern having embossed areas and non-embossed
areas in registry. Shinmura et al is not concerned with obtain-
ing an embossed effect in printed areas only but to obtain a
seersucker or crepe design over-all pattern in knitted piece
goods. As previously indicated, the Shinmura et al reference
refers to a very specialized treatment of particular material,
the use of a printing paste containing a benzamide applied to
polyvinyl alcohol fibers and is restricted to attaining a seer-
sucker or crepe design on goods of polyvinyl alcohol fibers only.
In contrast thereto applicant's process relates to the printing
and embossing of carpet material which would, in applicant's
opinion, be directed to non-analogous art....
...
The Examiner in the Official Action has attempted to suggest that
what is lacking in the prior art specifically cited would be
found in the state of the art unspecified, however, it is sub-
mitted that there is no prior art to suggest printing employing
a dye or no prior art to suggest that a previously printed pat-
tern component is in-register printed with a second pattern com-
ponent without the premously printed pattern being set. Applicant
has by the present concept attained a carpet having a pattern
printed thereon and the pattern having embossed areas and non-
embossed areas in-register all ina single pass operation. The
concept of the single pass operation is attainable only on a reading
of applicant's disclosure and cannot be found in either of the
references suggested by the Examiner nor would such be obvious in
view of the state of art known to applicant. It is thus submitted
that in applicant's opinion claims 1 and 2 presently on file would
not be rendered obvious in view of the references cited when
viewed with the state of the art. Reconsideration and withdrawal
of the Final Action by the Examiner is requested....
We have carefully considered the prosecution of this application and the
interesting and informative remarks made at the Hearing by Mr. D. Watson.
A number of sample models of the carpet were also displayed at the Hearing.
The issue to be considered is whether or not the applicant has made a
patentable advance in the art. Claim 1 reads as follows:
A process for producing a carpet having a pattern printed thereon
and the pattern having embossed areas and non-embossed design
areas in registry, composing the steps of: printing the carpet
with at least one pattern component, using only a dye to provide
the pattern component, moving the carpet to a second printing
station wherein the previously printed pattern component is in
register with the second pattern component to be printed, print-
ing the second pattern component in register with the first
pattern component and using a printing ink containing a solvent
for the carpet fibers, then after all of the pattern components
have been printed on the carpet, applying steam to the carpet to
shrink the fibers affected by the solvent to produce an embossed
effect in the printed areas and to set the dyes in the carpet,
washing the carpet, and then drying the carpet to remove the
wash water.
It is first of importance to note that the word "emboss" means (New
Collegiate Dictionary): to ornament with raised work - to raise in re-
lief from a surface.
The Dickie patent, which issued in 1933, treats materials such as cellulose
acetate with the combination of an organic liquid and an inorganic salt
having a solvent action on the cellulose derivative to attack part of the
cellulose derivative. He then dries the material and removes the cellu-
lose derivative. In this patent the effect is achieved by physical removal
of fiber, rather than by fiber shrinkage. We are not satisfied that it
would be readily apparent or obvious to use the shrinkage technique of the
present application from the teachings of this patent. The reference
does not teach nor suggest the process as disclosed in the present appli-
cation.
The Shinmura patent is specifically concerned with the problem of impress-
ing embossed seersucker or crepe design on woven or knitted piece goods.
Shinmura's effect is not created by reduction in the vertical height of
certain yarns, as in the present application, but by the shrinkage in the
horizontal direction in which the contraction of certain yarns in that
horizontal direction pulls the fabric together and causes adjacent yarns
to crinkle out of the plane of the main flat fabric.
Seersucker and crepe fabrics are normally relatively light weight
apparel fabrics and are usually made by weaving yarns of different twists,
either in the warp direction or in the weft direction. The fabric is then
treated to permit the different twists to assert themselves to pull the
relatively light weight fabric in different directions, to crinkle
certain parts thereof out of the main plane of the relatively flat fabric.
Chemical seersucker and crepe operations are also known, such as in
Shinmura, wherein the chemical action of a shrinking agent pulls certain
parts of the fabric together and causes other parts to crinkle out of the
main plane of the relatively flat, light weight fabric. It is a type of
action which is completely different from the embossing action obtained
by the applicant.
In summary Dickie teaches the total removal of patches of fabric. Shinmura
clearly teaches the treatment of woven or knitted goods and not of pile
fabrics. In other words the fabrics are different from that in Shinmura;
the type of action is different; and the final product is different.
Claim 1 is directed to a process for producing a carpet having a pattern
printed thereon with the pattern having embossed areas and non-embossed
areas. A dye or printing ink only is used in the first pattern component;
a dye or printing ink containing a solvent is used on a later pattern com-
ponent; steam is then applied to the carpet to shrink the fibers affected
by the solvent to produce an embossed effect in the printed areas and to
set the dyes. The applicant is furthermore only concerned with a new pro-
cess and not a new product. The monopoly sought by the applicant is fair,
in our view, and not broader than the invention made.
We are satisfied that the applicant has made a patentable advance in the
art. We recommend that the decision in the Final Action to refuse the
claims be withdrawn.
J.F. Hughes
Assistant Chairman
Patent Appeal Board, Canada
I have studied the prosecution of this application and have carefully re-
viewed the recommendations of the Patent Appeal Board. In the circumstances
I have decided to withdraw the Final Action and return the application to
the examiner for resumption of prosecution.
J.H.A. Gariepy
Commissioner of Patents
Agent for Applicant
Gowling & Henderson
P.O. Box 466; Terminal A
Ottawa, Ontario
KIN 8S3
Dated in Hull, Quebec
this 8th. day of August, 1977