Appeal No. 2004-0027 Page 3
Application No. 09/513,089
The Examiner maintains rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and relies upon the
following prior art references as evidence of obviousness:
Dickey 3,057,766 Oct. 9, 1962
Codos 3,131,105 Apr. 28, 1964
King 3,239,399 Mar. 8, 1966
Richter et al. (Richter) 3,961,629 Jun. 8, 1976
Wilson 5,719,201 Feb. 17, 1998
Admitted Prior Art, specification, p. 2, ll. 10-31 (Admitted Prior Art).
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wilson in
view of Richter and either one of the Admitted Prior Art or Dickey. To reject claim 6, the
Examiner adds either one of Codos or King.
We affirm and in so doing incorporate by reference the findings of fact and conclusions
of law advanced by the Examiner in the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
OPINION
Claim 5 is directed to the flame-lamination of a textile strip onto a hydrophilic polyester-
polyurethane foam material. There are two important aspects to this claim: (1) the composition
of the hydrophilic polyester-polyurethane foam and (2) the steps of flame-laminating the foam to
a textile strip material. The Examiner finds that Wilson describes a hydrophilic polyester-
polyurethane foam meeting the requirements of claim 5 (Answer, p. 4). The Examiner
acknowledges that Wilson does not suggest flame-laminating the foam to a textile strip, but cites
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007