Appeal No. 2001-2451
Application 09/157,705
of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s
rejection of claim 1, and claims 3-7 which stand or fall with
claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Lappala.
B. The Rejection under § 103(a) over Lappala
The examiner incorporates the findings from Lappala as
discussed above (Answer, page 3). With regard to claims 8-9,
the examiner takes notice that both heat activatable adhesives
or layers joined by flame lamination are “well known and
conventional means of bonding foam layers.” Id. Appellant does
not contest the examiner’s statement (Brief, pages 4-7).
Accordingly, we adopt the examiner’s statement as a fact and
affirm the rejection of claims 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Lappala.
With regard to claims 13-15, the examiner admits that the
stiffness modulus of the foam composite material is not disclosed
by Lappala (Answer, page 4). However, the examiner finds that
the stiffness modulus of the composite material would be
dependent, at least in part, upon the thickness of the foam core,
and therefore it would have been obvious to have optimized the
stiffness modulus of the pad by controlling the thickness of the
pad. Id.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007