Appeal No. 2001-2451
Application 09/157,705
5). Claims 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wiegand in view of Fracalossi and Quinn (id.).
We affirm the examiner’s rejection under section 102(b) over
Lappala and the rejection of claims 8-9 under section 103(a) over
Lappala. All other rejections on appeal are reversed.
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision to reject the claims on
appeal is affirmed-in-part. Our reasoning follows.
OPINION
A. The Rejection under § 102(b)
The examiner finds that Lappala discloses a composite
material comprising an inner foam core and two outer foam layers
where a reinforcing scrim or netting is disposed between the
inner foam core and each of the outer foam layers (Answer, page
3). The examiner further finds that the foam layers may all
comprise polyurethane foam while the reinforcing scrim or netting
may comprise polyethylene fibers, with the scrim or netting
bonded to the foam by means of an adhesive (id., citing col. 2,
ll. 34-40; ll. 49-51; ll. 55-57; col. 3, ll. 9-23, Fig. 3; and
col. 5, ll. 74-75). Accordingly, the examiner finds that Lappala
teaches the claimed structure (Answer, page 7).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007