Appeal No. 2004-1118
Application No. 09/619,873
dampening] composite with increased strength and that
is permanently self-extinguishing [answer, page 3].
However, the polyimide foam of Okey appears to possess the
strength and self-extinguishing characteristics which the
examiner urges would have motivated its replacement with Allen’s
polyurethane foam. Further, and more importantly, Okey expressly
teaches that his polyimide foams enjoy significant advantages
relative to most plastic foams which render the former
particularly desirable for use in the aerospace environment in
which patentee’s laminate is used. By way of exemplification,
Okey’s polyimide foams do not lose their strength and resiliency
at low temperatures whereas most plastic foams become rigid and
brittle at such low temperatures (e.g., see lines 25-38 in column
1). There is simply nothing in the applied prior art which
indicates that Allen’s polyurethane foams possess these
advantages.
Thus, the examiner’s proffered motivation for replacing
Okey’s polyimide foam with Allen’s polyurethane foam is
questionable at best. On the other hand, Okey’s teaching
regarding the advantages of polyimide foam militates against the
examiner’s proposed replacement thereof. Under these
circumstances, we are led to the determination that the applied
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007