Appeal No. 2001-2451
Application 09/157,705
Appellant argues that making a very flexible material
thicker will not cause the material to become significantly
stiffer (Brief, page 12). Appellant also argues that the denier
disclosed by Lappala relates to thickness and mass, not rigidity,
and there is no suggestion in Lappala of a stiffness modulus as
high as 100 psi as required by claims 13-15 (Brief, pages 12-13;
Reply Brief, page 3).
We agree with appellant that the examiner has not met the
initial burden of proof in establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness, namely the examiner has failed to establish that
thickness is directly related to stiffness and is a result
effective variable. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445,
24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Given the flexibility
desired by Lappala for the composite material, the examiner has
not presented any convincing evidence or reasoning as to why a
high stiffness modulus such as required by claims 13-15 would
have been desired by one of ordinary skill in the art, nor why
one of such skill would have increased the thickness when Lappala
teaches that the foam thickness must not be too great (col. 5,
ll. 65-73).
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the examiner
has not established a prima facie case of obviousness for the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007