Appeal No. 2001-2451
Application 09/157,705
subject matter of claims 13-15 in view of the reference evidence.
Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 13-15
under section 103(a) over Lappala.
C. The Rejection of claim 2 under § 103(a)
The examiner applies Lappala as discussed above and cites
Fracalossi for the teaching that rebonded polyurethane foams are
“especially useful because these foams have improved flame
resistance.” Answer, page 5. Accordingly, the examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to have used the foams
of Fracalossi in the composite of Lappala in order to enhance the
flame resistance of the composite material. Id.
It is well settled that when a combination of references is
used to support a rejection, it is incumbent upon the examiner to
show clear and particular evidence of a motivation, suggestion or
reason to combine the references as proposed. See In re
Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir.
1999). As correctly argued by appellant (Brief, page 8; Reply
Brief, page 4), Lappala and Fracalossi are not directed to the
same field of invention and Lappala does not disclose or suggest
any problem with flame resistance. Accordingly, there is no
evidence in the art presented by the examiner of a motivation,
suggestion or reason to substitute the bonded polyurethane of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007