Appeal No. 1997-1491
Application No. 08/478,167
Furthermore, we find that Saborsky's disclosure bridging
columns 1 and 2 at page 2 would have suggested a density of
less than 0.6 p.c.f., particularly Saborsky's disclosure of
extremely light density of about 1 pound per cubic ft.
Regarding appellants' exterior layer of polyethylene, in
addition to the reference disclosures of Saborsky and Sens
cited by the examiner, we note that appellants' specification
acknowledges that it was know in the art to enclose a fiber
batt with an exterior plastic covering
(paragraph bridging pages 4 and 5). Also, while appellants
maintain at page 12 of the brief that the references do not
teach
the features of claims 6, 9-10, 15 and 35, appellants fail to
present a substantive argument why such features would have
been unobvious for one of ordinary skill in the art. See 37
CFR 1.192 (c)(8) iv.
As for the examiner's rejection of claims 14-16, 19-25,
35 and 36 under § 103 over Sens in view of Saborsky,
appellants only make reference to claims 19, 20, 21-23, 25 and
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007