Appeal No. 2001-2235 Page 7
Application No. 08/699,660
suggested by the Examiner. The material of Knowlton ‘610 is of a different nature than that of
Villo, i.e. thermoplastic polyamide versus heat expandible material.
We conclude that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
with respect to the subject matter of claims 1-10.
Claims 11-13 are rejected over Knowlton ‘610 in view of Hughes. As explained above,
the evidence is insufficient to show that Knowlton ‘610 would suggest to one of ordinary skill in
the art a process of using a heat softenable and plastically deformable polymer which is heated
and deformed as claimed.
Moreover, we are not convinced that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined
the teachings of Knowlton ‘610 and Hughes as suggested by the Examiner. According to the
Examiner, one of ordinary skill in the art would have heated the fastener of Knowlton ‘610
because Hughes teaches that heating the fastener reduces drive torque and enhances the flow of
thermoplastic materials. But the material of Knowlton ‘610 is a thermo-expansible material such
as vinyl foam tape or epoxy. The Examiner has failed to convince us that Knowlton ‘610
suggests using a thermoplastic. Nor is it clear that one of ordinary skill in the art would
reasonably expect to obtain the same benefits when heating the fastener inserted into the pellet
of Knowlton. Hughes inserts a fastener into a large thermoplastic workpiece.
We conclude that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
over Knowlton ‘610 in view of Hughes with respect to the subject matter of claims 11-13.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007