Appeal No. 2001-2451
Application 09/157,705
the teaching that rebonded polyurethane foams are especially
useful in cushions since these foams have improved flame
resistance (Answer, page 6). Finally, the examiner finds that
Wiegand does not teach bonding a layer of polyurethane foam to
the bottom of the composite and applies Quinn for the teaching
that forming a bottom foam layer on a cushioning pad keeps the
pad from slipping during use (id.). From these findings, the
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to use the
rebonded foams of Fracalossi in the material of Wiegand, as well
using a bottom foam layer on the cushioning pad of Wiegand as
taught by Quinn (id.). We disagree.
As discussed above, it is well settled that when a
combination of references is employed to support a rejection, it
is incumbent upon the examiner to present a compelling
motivation, suggestion or reason to combine the references as
proposed. See In re Dembiczak, supra. We determine that the
examiner has not presented any convincing evidence to support the
proposed combination of references.
Contrary to the examiner’s assertion (Answer, page 10),
Wiegand does not teach that polyethylene is the “preferred” foam
over polyurethane but teaches that polyethylene has the “strength
and structural rigidity required for a spring insulator which the
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007